|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 10, 2018 11:45:57 GMT -5
I'm unclear as to why this essence requires protection. In what way? From what? If I go with the true self/essence idea, then it needs protection from the unconscious, insane and violent world in which we live. Physiologically a 'shell' is created to protect us, otherwise it would likely be too much for our nervous system. The emotional pain of it all would be too much. This 'shell' is what you mean by imagined or false self. Yes. That's why man is a seed, kernel and shell (essence/true self and false self). For the seed to fulfill its potential, it has to cease to be what it is. Kernel germinates, this cracks open the outer shell which falls away, it has fulfilled its function. The living kernel becomes the plant, which flowers, and then has fruit. The fruit contains a seed, kernel and shell, and the process continues. Caterpillar - chrysalis - butterfly shows the same process. You can't find a butterfly in a caterpillar by outwardly looking. That's why the non-dual paradigm doesn't explain everything, we see process in-the-world. We see this in the Tao and yin and yang of the I Ching. Over time, yin turns in to yang and yang turns in to yin. The Tai Chi symbol is accurate only if it is seen to be moving. The small white dot becomes bigger, almost encompasses the whole, but at the point of almost wholeness, a black dot appears in the white field. This is the movement of the trigrams and hexagrams of the I Ching. All possible combinations of continually moving of yin into yang and yang into yin bring 64 hexagrams, which represent all of life. There is real actual movement, change, not merely the play of One.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2018 11:49:32 GMT -5
Yes, the term 'suffering' has a cultural meaning which isn't quite the same as 'dukkha', for example, as dukkha does pertain to pain as well as psychological 'craving'. 'Craving' covers the desire to have and the desire not to have. Perhaps a baby just cries because of discomfort but has no idea about how to alleviate it, so hasn't imagined 'something else' to crave. Later on we remember pleasurable feelings, so when pain arises we run from it in pursuit of 'something else' - which is the movement of the imagined self we call 'ego'. I would say when a baby is crying it is probably always a sign of discomfort, but is this discomfort, pain or suffering, or both? Random example from youtube. Not easy to watch, Pain, suffering or both? One of the many problems with observing behavior to determine when suffering is happening, is that we inevitably compare it to our own behavior when we suffer. I.E. you would have to suffer a lot to cry like that, so baby must be suffering a lot.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 10, 2018 11:55:50 GMT -5
But that's what conditioning is, the conditioning chooses. This is the meaning of not-being-free. I've heard it said that when an elephant is young a metal stake and chain will hold it. It becomes conditioned. It gets older and eventually an adult. As an adult it can easily pull the stake up and walk away. But the conditioning is what holds the elephant in place, not the reality of the situation. Conditioning = inability to choose. But eventually an overwhelming stimulus can overcome the conditioning. But we take the conditioning to be ourselves, thus, change is difficult. Okay, the problem for me with this is the idea that conditioning can be overcome. I would just say that conditioning changes, as our definitions and values change. For example, the beaten woman may have a definition of 'love' that is more akin to 'need'. She may also have some beliefs about loyalty, and she may have a commitment to marital vows (dang, I despise most marital vow), and she may value the idea of 'marriage', even if it is rotten. But then something happens in which she question her definition and experience of love. Her values change. And finally she is able to leave. For me there is always conditioning i.e as humans we have beliefs, definitions and values, and together they inform the choices we make and the direction we move in. That's not to say we can't be present...we may come to value presence highly. All this is why I can't make sense of the world without the inner essence. Most here always seems to take this view (your post), there is merely conditioning, the self is merely conditioning. Yes, I accept that the conditioned self is imaginary, I have always said this, I always agree where I can agree. However, for me (and the tradition of the 4th Way) there is a potential-real-possibility-of-individuation, this is what essence is, possibility, a seed. So one can become ~de-conditioned~. The erasure of conditioning allows the "seed" to germinate, the real to flower. So there doesn't have to be a movement from one conditioning to another, which is a kind of moving from one prison to another. The energy can be taken out of conditioning.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 10, 2018 11:57:13 GMT -5
He is conditioned to beat, she is conditioned to accept beating (co-dependence and enabling). He can't choose otherwise, she can't choose otherwise, until a new dramatic energy enters. See post above, we don't see our conditioning because we take ourselves to-be that conditioning, that, is what we are (we believe, to such an extent that it's invisible). yes, for example, maybe the woman identifies with being a 'good wife', and that means sticking to her husband 'for better or worse, till death do us part'. Personally, I'm not sure we actually 'break free' from identification altogether (though it can certainly seem as if we do, and this is important), but I would agree we can break free from these kind of archaic and ill conceived definitions and understandings of who/what we are. See post above.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 10, 2018 11:59:46 GMT -5
I would say when a baby is crying it is probably always a sign of discomfort, but is this discomfort, pain or suffering, or both? Random example from youtube. Not easy to watch, Pain, suffering or both? One of the many problems with observing behavior to determine when suffering is happening, is that we inevitably compare it to our own behavior when we suffer. I.E. you would have to suffer a lot to cry like that, so baby must be suffering a lot. I have heard accounts of people remembering being born, you can probably google it. There is a person there, present from birth. So a person that can suffer.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2018 12:04:36 GMT -5
If I go with the true self/essence idea, then it needs protection from the unconscious, insane and violent world in which we live. Physiologically a 'shell' is created to protect us, otherwise it would likely be too much for our nervous system. The emotional pain of it all would be too much. This 'shell' is what you mean by imagined or false self. Yes. That's why man is a seed, kernel and shell (essence/true self and false self). For the seed to fulfill its potential, it has to cease to be what it is. Kernel germinates, this cracks open the outer shell which falls away, it has fulfilled its function. The living kernel becomes the plant, which flowers, and then has fruit. The fruit contains a seed, kernel and shell, and the process continues. Caterpillar - chrysalis - butterfly shows the same process. You can't find a butterfly in a caterpillar by outwardly looking. That's why the non-dual paradigm doesn't explain everything, we see process in-the-world. We see this in the Tao and yin and yang of the I Ching. Over time, yin turns in to yang and yang turns in to yin. The Tai Chi symbol is accurate only if it is seen to be moving. The small white dot becomes bigger, almost encompasses the whole, but at the point of almost wholeness, a black dot appears in the white field. This is the movement of the trigrams and hexagrams of the I Ching. All possible combinations of continually moving of yin into yang and yang into yin bring 64 hexagrams, which represent all of life. There is real actual movement, change, not merely the play of One. Yeah I agree, the caterpillar-butterfly example is an oldie but goodie, though I got a bit lost towards the end. For me, non-duality at its best is compelled to point out that process, becoming and potential is illusion (because time-space is illusion), and 'Being' is all that is real..... BUT it doesn't write off the validity of the illusion. Because ultimately, even 'illusion' is illusion, and in this sense, this experience is all we have. As I said before, I just sort of live with the tension between Being and becoming. I have a belief that humans can be 'more' than they currently are, and that they are functioning below their potential, and I can't ignore my desire to witness/experience a higher poential (in me too), but then i also acknowledge the value in seeing through this judgement to the deeper 'non-dual' perfection, and there is a time for me to 'temper' the desire and reside in Beingness.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2018 12:12:25 GMT -5
I would say when a baby is crying it is probably always a sign of discomfort, but is this discomfort, pain or suffering, or both? Random example from youtube. Not easy to watch, Pain, suffering or both? One of the many problems with observing behavior to determine when suffering is happening, is that we inevitably compare it to our own behavior when we suffer. I.E. you would have to suffer a lot to cry like that, so baby must be suffering a lot. Sometimes it is better just to trust your intuition, instinct and paternal instinct. I don't have a problem with talking about a particular form of adult human suffering (which I see you doing), but I think the idea that babies and animals don't/can't suffer is spiritual ideas gone a bit wrong. If it is intelligent, it can suffer. I suspect that much of the human movement towards spirituality is the natural desire to stop the suffering. Fair enough. But I think what can happen is that we can end up distancing ourselves from suffering, which is actually a subtle form of separation. There's nothing wrong with suffering given that we also experience pain and illness etc. When you see a baby in pain, you should suffer a bit. Take a look at the comments on the video....notice how people are suffering when they see it, some of the reactions are quite disturbing in fact. The goal of spirituality isn't actually not to suffer, it is to become more intelligent in our response to suffering.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 10, 2018 12:36:21 GMT -5
Yes. That's why man is a seed, kernel and shell (essence/true self and false self). For the seed to fulfill its potential, it has to cease to be what it is. Kernel germinates, this cracks open the outer shell which falls away, it has fulfilled its function. The living kernel becomes the plant, which flowers, and then has fruit. The fruit contains a seed, kernel and shell, and the process continues. Caterpillar - chrysalis - butterfly shows the same process. You can't find a butterfly in a caterpillar by outwardly looking. That's why the non-dual paradigm doesn't explain everything, we see process in-the-world. We see this in the Tao and yin and yang of the I Ching. Over time, yin turns in to yang and yang turns in to yin. The Tai Chi symbol is accurate only if it is seen to be moving. The small white dot becomes bigger, almost encompasses the whole, but at the point of almost wholeness, a black dot appears in the white field. This is the movement of the trigrams and hexagrams of the I Ching. All possible combinations of continually moving of yin into yang and yang into yin bring 64 hexagrams, which represent all of life. There is real actual movement, change, not merely the play of One. Yeah I agree, the caterpillar-butterfly example is an oldie but goodie, though I got a bit lost towards the end. For me, non-duality at its best is compelled to point out that process, becoming and potential is illusion (because time-space is illusion), and 'Being' is all that is real..... BUT it doesn't write off the validity of the illusion. Because ultimately, even 'illusion' is illusion, and in this sense, this experience is all we have. As I said before, I just sort of live with the tension between Being and becoming. I have a belief that humans can be 'more' than they currently are, and that they are functioning below their potential, and I can't ignore my desire to witness/experience a higher poential (in me too), but then i also acknowledge the value in seeing through this judgement to the deeper 'non-dual' perfection, and there is a time for me to 'temper' the desire and reside in Beingness. Yes, I know, one reason I say I am not a nondualist. For me, space and time are real, they allow movement, change, this allows growth.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 10, 2018 12:41:39 GMT -5
One of the many problems with observing behavior to determine when suffering is happening, is that we inevitably compare it to our own behavior when we suffer. I.E. you would have to suffer a lot to cry like that, so baby must be suffering a lot. Sometimes it is better just to trust your intuition, instinct and paternal instinct. I don't have a problem with talking about a particular form of adult human suffering (which I see you doing), but I think the idea that babies and animals don't/can't suffer is spiritual ideas gone a bit wrong. If it is intelligent, it can suffer. I suspect that much of the human movement towards spirituality is the natural desire to stop the suffering. Fair enough. But I think what can happen is that we can end up distancing ourselves from suffering, which is actually a subtle form of separation. There's nothing wrong with suffering given that we also experience pain and illness etc. When you see a baby in pain, you should suffer a bit. Take a look at the comments on the video....notice how people are suffering when they see it, some of the reactions are quite disturbing in fact. The goal of spirituality isn't actually not to suffer, it is to become more intelligent in our response to suffering. I will say this, suffering does not exist in the present moment. Suffering necessitates a psychological movement, carrying of a memory, comparison of now to a ~better~ future because of remembering a better past. If there is no psychological movement, suffering ceases.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2018 12:43:14 GMT -5
Okay, the problem for me with this is the idea that conditioning can be overcome. I would just say that conditioning changes, as our definitions and values change. For example, the beaten woman may have a definition of 'love' that is more akin to 'need'. She may also have some beliefs about loyalty, and she may have a commitment to marital vows (dang, I despise most marital vow), and she may value the idea of 'marriage', even if it is rotten. But then something happens in which she question her definition and experience of love. Her values change. And finally she is able to leave. For me there is always conditioning i.e as humans we have beliefs, definitions and values, and together they inform the choices we make and the direction we move in. That's not to say we can't be present...we may come to value presence highly. All this is why I can't make sense of the world without the inner essence. Most here always seems to take this view (your post), there is merely conditioning, the self is merely conditioning. Yes, I accept that the conditioned self is imaginary, I have always said this, I always agree where I can agree. However, for me (and the tradition of the 4th Way) there is a potential-real-possibility-of-individuation, this is what essence is, possibility, a seed. So one can become ~de-conditioned~. The erasure of conditioning allows the "seed" to germinate, the real to flower. So there doesn't have to be a movement from one conditioning to another, which is a kind of moving from one prison to another. The energy can be taken out of conditioning. Well I don't disagree with a lot of that. For me what matters isn't whether there is conditioning, it is whether our experience is such that it is AS IF we are free of it. I am reminded of Tolle again...'whatever the present moment contains, accept it as if you had chosen it.' . For me, the natural way is to live spontaneously, freely and in the present moment...so for all intents and purposes....we are free from conditioning. I prefer the caterpillar-butterfly analogy to seed-flower because the caterpillar-butterfly analogy speaks of a shift in conditioning too. Certainly I understand what you mean by authentic/true self, and I definitely do see value and truth to the idea, but the boundary of the idea is that there is a conceptual gap created between authentic self and inauthentic self, individual 'true' self and conditioned self. I don't tend to like agreeing with Enigma, but when he is challenging the idea of a 'true self', I see him attempting to challenge that conceptual gap in his way. I'm sure you would agree that a caterpillar isn't a false self, and a butterfly isn't an authentic self. It's just a different form of conditioning, a different form of life experience. The transformation is different for humans in the sense that in order to achieve a higher potential, we HAVE to connect to the unconditioned formless/timeless dimension....whereas caterpillars probably don't, but overall, for humans too, it is still just a change in conditioning...life becoming a new kind of form.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2018 12:47:52 GMT -5
Yeah I agree, the caterpillar-butterfly example is an oldie but goodie, though I got a bit lost towards the end. For me, non-duality at its best is compelled to point out that process, becoming and potential is illusion (because time-space is illusion), and 'Being' is all that is real..... BUT it doesn't write off the validity of the illusion. Because ultimately, even 'illusion' is illusion, and in this sense, this experience is all we have. As I said before, I just sort of live with the tension between Being and becoming. I have a belief that humans can be 'more' than they currently are, and that they are functioning below their potential, and I can't ignore my desire to witness/experience a higher poential (in me too), but then i also acknowledge the value in seeing through this judgement to the deeper 'non-dual' perfection, and there is a time for me to 'temper' the desire and reside in Beingness. Yes, I know, one reason I say I am not a nondualist. For me, space and time are real, they allow movement, change, this allows growth. yeah, but good non-duality can go beyond the 'illusion' bit in my opinion (as I tried to explain).
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2018 12:59:56 GMT -5
Sometimes it is better just to trust your intuition, instinct and paternal instinct. I don't have a problem with talking about a particular form of adult human suffering (which I see you doing), but I think the idea that babies and animals don't/can't suffer is spiritual ideas gone a bit wrong. If it is intelligent, it can suffer. I suspect that much of the human movement towards spirituality is the natural desire to stop the suffering. Fair enough. But I think what can happen is that we can end up distancing ourselves from suffering, which is actually a subtle form of separation. There's nothing wrong with suffering given that we also experience pain and illness etc. When you see a baby in pain, you should suffer a bit. Take a look at the comments on the video....notice how people are suffering when they see it, some of the reactions are quite disturbing in fact. The goal of spirituality isn't actually not to suffer, it is to become more intelligent in our response to suffering. I will say this, suffering does not exist in the present moment. Suffering necessitates a psychological movement, carrying of a memory, comparison of now to a ~better~ future because of remembering a better past. If there is no psychological movement, suffering ceases. okay, but if there is pain being felt, then there is a psychological movement (and suffering). Doesn't have to be an adult abstract 'conceptual' psychological movement though.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 10, 2018 13:17:08 GMT -5
All this is why I can't make sense of the world without the inner essence. Most here always seems to take this view (your post), there is merely conditioning, the self is merely conditioning. Yes, I accept that the conditioned self is imaginary, I have always said this, I always agree where I can agree. However, for me (and the tradition of the 4th Way) there is a potential-real-possibility-of-individuation, this is what essence is, possibility, a seed. So one can become ~de-conditioned~. The erasure of conditioning allows the "seed" to germinate, the real to flower. So there doesn't have to be a movement from one conditioning to another, which is a kind of moving from one prison to another. The energy can be taken out of conditioning. Well I don't disagree with a lot of that. For me what matters isn't whether there is conditioning, it is whether our experience is such that it is AS IF we are free of it. I am reminded of Tolle again...'whatever the present moment contains, accept it as if you had chosen it.' . For me, the natural way is to live spontaneously, freely and in the present moment...so for all intents and purposes....we are free from conditioning. I prefer the caterpillar-butterfly analogy to seed-flower because the caterpillar-butterfly analogy speaks of a shift in conditioning too. Certainly I understand what you mean by authentic/true self, and I definitely do see value and truth to the idea, but the boundary of the idea is that there is a conceptual gap created between authentic self and inauthentic self, individual 'true' self and conditioned self. I don't tend to like agreeing with Enigma, but when he is challenging the idea of a 'true self', I see him attempting to challenge that conceptual gap in his way. I'm sure you would agree that a caterpillar isn't a false self, and a butterfly isn't an authentic self. It's just a different form of conditioning, a different form of life experience. The transformation is different for humans in the sense that in order to achieve a higher potential, we HAVE to connect to the unconditioned formless/timeless dimension....whereas caterpillars probably don't, but overall, for humans too, it is still just a change in conditioning...life becoming a new kind of form. What I'm saying is that conditioning keeps a "caterpillar" from ever being a butterfly. It's kind of like Jonathan Livingston Seagull, kind of like the Ugly Duckling.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 10, 2018 13:20:27 GMT -5
Yes, I know, one reason I say I am not a nondualist. For me, space and time are real, they allow movement, change, this allows growth. yeah, but good non-duality can go beyond the 'illusion' bit in my opinion (as I tried to explain). But the non-dualists accept the conditioning, they accept it as part of the natural flow. This in a very real sense horrifies me (for them). However, they are adamant, so...
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 10, 2018 13:22:51 GMT -5
I will say this, suffering does not exist in the present moment. Suffering necessitates a psychological movement, carrying of a memory, comparison of now to a ~better~ future because of remembering a better past. If there is no psychological movement, suffering ceases. okay, but if there is pain being felt, then there is a psychological movement (and suffering). Doesn't have to be an adult abstract 'conceptual' psychological movement though. No, agree. "Living tissue" is tangled up with concepts...like a Gordian Knot. Messy.
|
|