|
|
Post by Portto on Jan 11, 2010 13:18:24 GMT -5
And these additional thoughts, assumptions, feelings, etc. are only thought to be limiting and in the way because they seem threatening and so we try to avoid them. This isn't necessarily a conscious thing, but just that we've BEEN resisting it our whole lives since we were little, and so forgot that that was even going on. We think it's status quo, that it's reality, but it's really an active avoidance of what has always been going on. Great posts, Lightmystic! When I read the above, I almost remembered (or maybe imagined) being a small child and my parents pointing at me and saying "You are Porto." And then I said: OK, if you insist so much, maybe you are right. Since then, it snowballed into a fully developed ego - all based on that initial assumption that I completely forgot about... |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 11, 2010 13:39:06 GMT -5
Porto: When my daughter was growing up, I watched the ego-crystallization process with fascination. At the age of six, she could answer a wide range of koans, but at the age of twelve she could no longer see through the very same questions. I often speculated about how a parent could teach a child the truth in a way that would be compatible with normal socialization, but I finally concluded it wasn't yet possible. Perhaps in the future non-duality will be recognized by enough people so that it will be normal to teach a child the truth.
I think the Upanishads contains the account wherein Krishna educates Arjuna. He walks around with Arjuna and says, "Do you see the river? Well, that's who you really are. Do you see the tree? Well, that's who you really are." Etc. It's been several years since I read that dialogue, but it's pretty far out. If I remember correctly, at some point in their interaction, Arjuna tells Krishna that he doesn't want to go to war and fight. Krishna explains that there is a time for everything, and that his job at the moment is to pick up his sword and go to war. Because the Upanishads and other similar mystical treatises are read and studied by Indians, it makes me wonder why most of the Hindus I meet are so conventional in their beliefs. Maybe the ones I meet are Southern Baptist Hindus. LOL.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Jan 11, 2010 15:37:54 GMT -5
zendancer & all,
You mentioned ego crystallization process which brought to mind an experience I had in that state between wakefulness and sleep.
"I" was not present in that state, what was happening was a complete reconstruction of "my" body/mind by this intelligent Presence as if disguising Itself. Once this process of reconstruction was complete I was fully awake, and this happened in what seemed afterward like microseconds.
It felt like what I call a reverse enlightenment experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by kornjace on Jan 11, 2010 19:49:24 GMT -5
I want to thank you for responce ZD and Lightmystic. Lots of posts here per day so response may seem little late.
Yes, I do understand the things both of you are saying completely. Ive spent some time trying to answer you, but Ill leave it like this. Maybe I dont have anything to say, your posts speak a enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by question on Jan 11, 2010 22:39:38 GMT -5
Porto: Ha ha. We solve an imaginary problem by realizing that it's imaginary. We imagine, for example, that we are separate, and our imaginary problem is how to become unified. Eventually we discover that we were never separate and the problem automatically disappears. Are you referring to spiritual seekers or normal people? When I am a spiritual seeker I feel awful, because I'm playing this seperation/unity enlightenment game. When I am just normal guy I don't have this problem and here's why. When I refer to an "I", I refer to a cerebral process. Of course this "I" process is seperate from what it is not. I don't even try to make this process be unified with what it is not, that would be simply crazy. At the same time, this process is of course part of the universe. I am part of the universe, but I am not the universe. So in that sense I am neither seperate, nor do I yearn for cosmic unity. I live I die like everyone and everything else, no big deal. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jan 12, 2010 9:38:48 GMT -5
Zendancer: You really are a walking database on nonduality.
I like your observations regarding ego and reality.
Currently, it seems to me that the ego is a natural appearance in "what is," just like trees, cars, insects, animals, etc. are.
Ego is an arbitrary division of reality, just like all the other objects are.
The main "mistake" seems to be that "we" consider ego to be the source of beingness.
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Jan 12, 2010 12:55:59 GMT -5
Thanks porto, Yeah, the appearance of separation is too strong at that point, and we get sucked in by the dark side. Only when the force is strong enough with us can we then break out of that.  And these additional thoughts, assumptions, feelings, etc. are only thought to be limiting and in the way because they seem threatening and so we try to avoid them. This isn't necessarily a conscious thing, but just that we've BEEN resisting it our whole lives since we were little, and so forgot that that was even going on. We think it's status quo, that it's reality, but it's really an active avoidance of what has always been going on. Great posts, Lightmystic! When I read the above, I almost remembered (or maybe imagined) being a small child and my parents pointing at me and saying "You are Porto." And then I said: OK, if you insist so much, maybe you are right. Since then, it snowballed into a fully developed ego - all based on that initial assumption that I completely forgot about... |
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Jan 12, 2010 12:57:36 GMT -5
Glad to hear it kornjace. If that response ever bubbles up, go ahead and give it a post if you want. I want to thank you for responce ZD and Lightmystic. Lots of posts here per day so response may seem little late. Yes, I do understand the things both of you are saying completely. Ive spent some time trying to answer you, but Ill leave it like this. Maybe I dont have anything to say, your posts speak a enough. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 12, 2010 13:29:07 GMT -5
Porto: Yes, you're exactly right. Ego is just another idea, a natural consequence of having the power of imagination. We begin by identifying with a body, and gradually we extend that identification to our thoughts and ultimately our entire personal story. This is why ego is no longer a problem after it is seen for what it is. It is just like lines of longitude and latitude. We use those lines for lots of good reasons, but we never imagine that they have any reality apart from being an imaginary grid. With sufficient clarity we are able to see that "trees," "electrons," automobiles," "human beings," and "selfhood" are a similar kind of grid exactly like lines of longitude and latitude.
Here's a great quote from Ramana Maharshi that Gary Weber has on his website:
"It is within your competence to think and become bound or cease thinking and become free."
This is correct, but thinking ceases to be a problem after seeing through the illusions created by thinking. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 12, 2010 13:40:11 GMT -5
Question: Yes, I wrote that specifically in reference to spiritual seekers who can generally be described as people searching for unity.
I'm not sure that I understand what you meant in your second paragraph. You wrote, "I am a part of the universe, but I am not the universe." If I understand what I think you're saying, I would have to answer, "No, who you are IS the universe." You are not a body nor an ego; you are THAT that sees ideas of "body" and "ego." Who you are was not born and will not die.
It doesn't matter whether or not "you" yearn for cosmic unity. "You" are a dream. There is only oneness and all else is illusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by karen on Jan 12, 2010 14:55:51 GMT -5
[snip]I am part of the universe, but I am not the universe. So in that sense I am neither seperate, nor do I yearn for cosmic unity. I live I die like everyone and everything else, no big deal. Is that felt through and through? Or is this a belief or position or policy? How do you know these things you know? |
|
|
|
Post by question on Jan 12, 2010 19:30:42 GMT -5
Question: Yes, I wrote that specifically in reference to spiritual seekers who can generally be described as people searching for unity. I'm not sure that I understand what you meant in your second paragraph. You wrote, "I am a part of the universe, but I am not the universe." If I understand what I think you're saying, I would have to answer, "No, who you are IS the universe." You are not a body nor an ego; you are THAT that sees ideas of "body" and "ego." Who you are was not born and will not die. It doesn't matter whether or not "you" yearn for cosmic unity. "You" are a dream. There is only oneness and all else is illusion. I've heard this a million times, and it sound more and more bizarre, each time I hear it. It was quite motivational and exciting at first, but now it's just meaningless words. The "I" that I am referring to when I say "I", will die 100%. And this "I" had a beginning 100%. I know that, because I know that my brain didn't exist 26 years ago and most likely won't exist in 50 years or so. I'm sorry, I simply don't know of any other "I". [snip]I am part of the universe, but I am not the universe. So in that sense I am neither seperate, nor do I yearn for cosmic unity. I live I die like everyone and everything else, no big deal. Is that felt through and through? Or is this a belief or position or policy? How do you know these things you know? No, it is not felt. I don't really feel anything in that regard. In any case, I feel nothing like what is talked about on these forums. No, it's not a belief. It's knowledge, logical reasoning and science. Very simple: what I am referring to, when I refer to "myself" is that something, that is dependent on the brain's functioning. No brain = no I. I am not that slimy thing called brain, I am a specific process that is emergent from the brain. When I go to deep sleep at night, this process is shut off. My body, my brain still exist, but "I" don't exist during that period of time. That's the most obvious piece of evidence, and there is a lot more evidence. I'm not saying that there is no absolute self. Maybe there is, maybe not. I simply don't know. But I know that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of an absolute self. I understand that some people have an elightenment experience which serves as evidence, but what about 99% of the world's population (myself included) who aren't so lucky? And don't get me wrong. I don't think that this so-called "limited ego self" is at all a problem. And why even call it limited? What would be the point in calling an apple or a rock "limited"? Normal sane people don't think of themselves as immortal or infinite anyways, they know that they're limited, in the same way that everything else is limited. But magnifying this to metaphysical proportions is crazy. In my opinion, the limited self is totally fine as it is. The problem only arises (at least in my case) when I try to be infinitely more than what I am. |
|
|
|
Post by karen on Jan 12, 2010 20:23:45 GMT -5
Can you expand on the science that proves we are separate beings?
|
|
|
|
Post by karen on Jan 12, 2010 20:34:26 GMT -5
Also can you expand on the reasoning that proves we are separate?
I admit I often feel separate, but I can't pin-point the exact demarcation point between you and me. Before you bring up the space separating us, make sure you are just as discriminating with your left hand to your arm as ZD has pointed out. Remember it's science that proves there is mostly SPACE in there.
If space proves separation in miles, why not nanometers? At precisely what volume does space need to prove separation?
|
|
|
|
Post by question on Jan 12, 2010 21:51:04 GMT -5
Also can you expand on the reasoning that proves we are separate? I admit I often feel separate, but I can't pin-point the exact demarcation point between you and me. Before you bring up the space separating us, make sure you are just as discriminating with your left hand to your arm as ZD has pointed out. Remember it's science that proves there is mostly SPACE in there. If space proves separation in miles, why not nanometers? At precisely what volume does space need to prove separation? It's not about space. We're separate because I'll never be able to see the world through your eyes and hear with your ears etc. The universe sees both through my eyes and through yours, but I can access only my perspective. For example: Let's imagine a weird brain that hosts two selves. One self sees only with the left eye, hears with left ear, smells with the left nostril, and thinks its own thoughts. The other self perceives only with the senses on the right side and also has its own thoughts. One brain, but two completely separate personae, that are two seperate processes originating from the same brain using the same neural pathways. These two selves are not spatially separated, but still have two unique perspectives inaccessible to each other. |
|
