|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 16:11:12 GMT -5
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 12, 2019 16:11:12 GMT -5
This is a reply to ZD('s post) via zazeniac's post. The mind-body ZD has certain characteristics, certain learned skills, ways of seeing and acting in the world, "pouring concrete", handling finances, etc. If you want to call that superficial, fine, but ZD is unique to ZD. I think E would be fine with calling this the individuation (broadly). Previously, I have compared this ~self~ to the narrow part of an hourglass, where "All This" ~passes through~ (the "characteristics"). ZD has always said no, that the Whole is always and only acting, there is no glass narrowing. It's obvious to me, each mind-body has certain characteristics, call it conditioning or reaction to conditioning or whatever, but that's what I mean by self, but no, it is not a separate self. "Personalized" characteristics of an "individual" mind-body = (superficial?) self. ZD also maintains that this (imaginary) self cannot act in the world, because it doesn't exist. But skill exists, there are certain things ZD can accomplish (the mind-body can accomplish) which other mind-bodies cannot accomplish, to the same extent and creativity. Chuang Tzu makes this point in the story of the Wheelwright, who can't pass on what he knows even to his own sons. wayofoneness.com/2013/05/17/the-duke-and-a-wheelwright-by-zhuangzi/ This is what I mean by self, the narrow part of the hourglass that is the Wheelwright. (sdp would not say it's superficial). zazeniac has rightly understood the point(ing). And, what should we call that not-self? SDP: I'd prefer to use E's "individuation" rather than "self" to refer to the body/mind organism. No one denies that each body/mind has unique characteristics (if we want to make those distinctions), but to call that a "self" seems to add confusion from my POV. If we look at "what is" without distinction, words and ideas do not apply, so there's no constriction, no hourglass, no entities, etc. It's all one unified movement, or flow. In everyday life the activity of making abstract distinctions is unnecessary, and in the absence of distinctions life unfolds more smoothly and effortlessly than can be imagined. But does the Whole *act through* the mind-body *that is* ZD? Is there a ZD like the Wheelwright? (What has been called tacit knowing www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_knowledge/polanyi.html ). I don't care what you call it. When ZD is dead and gone, will there be a "hole" left, a not-place which the universe cannot function-through as it does now?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 17:23:29 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 17:23:29 GMT -5
SDP: I'd prefer to use E's "individuation" rather than "self" to refer to the body/mind organism. No one denies that each body/mind has unique characteristics (if we want to make those distinctions), but to call that a "self" seems to add confusion from my POV. If we look at "what is" without distinction, words and ideas do not apply, so there's no constriction, no hourglass, no entities, etc. It's all one unified movement, or flow. In everyday life the activity of making abstract distinctions is unnecessary, and in the absence of distinctions life unfolds more smoothly and effortlessly than can be imagined. But does the Whole *act through* the mind-body *that is* ZD? Is there a ZD like the Wheelwright? (What has been called tacit knowing www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_knowledge/polanyi.html ). I don't care what you call it. When ZD is dead and gone, will there be a "hole" left, a not-place which the universe cannot function-through as it does now? No, because that would be the same as saying that what is in the field of experience is independent of it.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 17:47:30 GMT -5
Post by justlikeyou on Mar 12, 2019 17:47:30 GMT -5
SDP: I'd prefer to use E's "individuation" rather than "self" to refer to the body/mind organism. No one denies that each body/mind has unique characteristics (if we want to make those distinctions), but to call that a "self" seems to add confusion from my POV. If we look at "what is" without distinction, words and ideas do not apply, so there's no constriction, no hourglass, no entities, etc. It's all one unified movement, or flow. In everyday life the activity of making abstract distinctions is unnecessary, and in the absence of distinctions life unfolds more smoothly and effortlessly than can be imagined. But does the Whole *act through* the mind-body *that is* ZD? Is there a ZD like the Wheelwright? (What has been called tacit knowing www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_knowledge/polanyi.html ). I don't care what you call it. When ZD is dead and gone, will there be a "hole" left, a not-place which the universe cannot function-through as it does now? This is an example of one pointing to a finite truth, while the other points to the Infinite.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 18:36:26 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Mar 12, 2019 18:36:26 GMT -5
It's very easy to look upon a particular behavior to conclude that it is definitively indicative of deep, pervasive anger, but just from looking on, you cannot say for certain what is actually going on inside.
There may be times where a seemingly 'harsh' response arises, perfectly, appropriately. It's not so easy to tell whether or not there is conscious awareness behind that response or whether mind has taken over and the response is indicative of getting swept away with the story.
Yeah, I talk about 'engagement' with the dream continuing, but I also say that that engagement only goes so far...that there are limits to how deeply the story captures attention/awareness. Being awake means that awareness of Being never gets obscured by the ensuing drama. Being asleep means the drama at times takes over and temporarily obscures Being.
Again, the behavior may look the same on the outside, but if there is groundedness in being, whatever behavior is happening, there will be conscious awareness of that. In wakefulness, Nothing is happening in an unconscious, knee-jerk manner. Discordant emotions/feelings no longer have the power to 'take over.' They still arise to some degree, because there is still a degree of caring about the dream, (likes and dislikes continue) but the depth of those discordant feelings is limited by the presence/peace of Being.
It's a good explanation. I can see that. I've been in situations where anger is volitional, where I'm calm and relxed, not SR, but I select the appropriate emotion and can watch myself get angry, and display anger, to avoid a bad outcome. It's almost feigned anger, but still there's a buy into the story. I'm trying to avoid a bad outcomee. I believe this stuff is real. Even when mind stops I never act as if this stuff happening is an illusion.What would 'not real' mean to you?
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 18:51:32 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Mar 12, 2019 18:51:32 GMT -5
I guess that then is specifically what changes in awakening. Strong, deep aversions of the hate/loathing variety, no longer have legs to stand upon.
How can you 'hate' a person who is a slave to his conditioning...who is not actually, volitionally choosing the 'bad' behavior?
The whole child molestation thing when I encounter it, makes me sad for sure, but I generally feel just as compassionate towards the perpetrator as I do for the victim.
The only thing that can illuminate the experiential as having less substance, (as being 'dream-stuff' in comparison to that which lies foundational,) is realizing that which lies foundational to the experiential, to be what you really are. Once that is clearly seen, that which arises TO 'You' loses it's ability to fully captivate/enmesh awareness.
I don't think awareness has compassion for the child molester or the child, that's very much a human trait.Awareness, as an impersonal somenothing cannot have compassion, but as a nothing engaging a dream of something, it can.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 20:05:58 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Mar 12, 2019 20:05:58 GMT -5
This fits Rupert's model except he doesn't call it conditioning. He calls it "residual layers of contracted energy." Or something like that. I agree with your assessment regarding fear of death and realization, but you must admit that there are many "unrealized" folk who also don't fear death and who have also stopped searching for answers. We sometimes call them religious fanatics now granted these, usually, embrace the notion of an afterlife. It seems the crux of the matter is etolle's question and to me it's simply realizing the answer to his question is "yes." This is the seed that sprouts awakening. First the mind grows skeptical of its own chatter and with practice grows silent. To me what you call realization CAN BE transposing the mind chattering about what's not happening with self talk about the illusory nature of reality, adding just another layer of conditioning. In my own case all this talk about what we are and are not is interesting fodder for the mind, but ego distractions never-the-less. As to anger and other emotions, when mind stops, everything seems to have a place and fits perfectly in the flow. On that note, I watched the movie "Free Solo" yesterday, and found it really interesting how the dude was clearly not afraid of death and yet was still completely and totally driven by the idea of 'being perfect.' So yeah....seemingly that fear of death CAN go, and one still not be SR. But it's a movie, right? I'm having trouble reconciling not caring if one lives or dies, and at the same time needing to live perfectly. Wouldn't both concerns fall away simultaneously?
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 20:17:25 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Mar 12, 2019 20:17:25 GMT -5
Why? From the dualistic point of view The Self refers to the Atma. Atma is one with the Paramatma (Super Self). Both are situated in the heart of all living beings. The Atma moves the body like the driver manuevring a car. The Paramatma who is seated beside the Atma gives proper instructions to the Atma as to how this body /car should be driven. If the Atma abides by the instructions from the Paramatma, well and good. If not, there's the possibility the body /car bumps into another body /car. The Atma suffers the consequence from the accident. The Paramatma seated next to the driver /Atma is not affected. If by chance the Atma /driver awakens that he's not the body /car but spirit-self then he liberates himself from the bondage of having to drive a body /car. Awakened, the Atma gets out from the body /car and starts walking home back to God with the Paramatma (the eternal companion) . The idea of a Self implies that God is personal. When one realizes what they are, there is nothing to grab onto to make it personal. You are wholeness. The person is a fragmentation of that wholeness.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 20:27:12 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Mar 12, 2019 20:27:12 GMT -5
The goal of SR is not to stop feeling, Which I suspect you can appreciate, or to stop feeling 'bad' feelings, the labeling of which is entirely ego driven. Given that, feelings arise unadulterated, as pure feeling without the judgment. It doesn't require a 'me identification' in order to engage and to feel in response to experience happening, and so all 'pure' feelings are felt and enjoyed. Feelings such as rage and terror will not arise, not because they are not good feelings, but because they are not real feelings. They are creative overlays of the mind in turmoil. Googled ( from a blogger who watches Burt Harding's views on You Tube ) Pure feeling is pure awareness. When you listen to your favorite piece of music you might literally forget yourself. In this 'self-forgetting' there is joy and innocence -- the true spiritual qualities. In other words, the qualities that we cherish such as freedom, love, joy, peace, happiness and inner fulfillment are not qualities at all -- they are the 'NOW' itself. Did you ever feel so drawn to something or someone where you actually disappeared? In that moment you were 'real' and 'egoless.' Did you ever watch performers perform incredible feats of focused energy? In that moment there was no ego (no personal 'I') but pure action emerging from the focused 'now.' Did you ever laugh so heartily that tears ran down your cheeks? In that moment there was spontaneous action from pure awareness. Pure feeling is always 'positive' because it brings out our true natural being of love and oneness. That's actually pretty good, but I would not say pure feeling is always positive. Positive/negative happens when mind distorts pure feeling with judgment, and makes it impure. Feeling is simply feeling.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 20:32:08 GMT -5
Post by krsnaraja on Mar 12, 2019 20:32:08 GMT -5
Why? From the dualistic point of view The Self refers to the Atma. Atma is one with the Paramatma (Super Self). Both are situated in the heart of all living beings. The Atma moves the body like the driver manuevring a car. The Paramatma who is seated beside the Atma gives proper instructions to the Atma as to how this body /car should be driven. If the Atma abides by the instructions from the Paramatma, well and good. If not, there's the possibility the body /car bumps into another body /car. The Atma suffers the consequence from the accident. The Paramatma seated next to the driver /Atma is not affected. If by chance the Atma /driver awakens that he's not the body /car but spirit-self then he liberates himself from the bondage of having to drive a body /car. Awakened, the Atma gets out from the body /car and starts walking home back to God with the Paramatma (the eternal companion) . The idea of a Self implies that God is personal. When one realizes what they are, there is nothing to grab onto to make it personal. You are wholeness. The person is a fragmentation of that wholeness. When I am wholeness is a way of saying,, " I am God." But I am not. I'm only a fragment of that Wholeness.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 20:33:44 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Mar 12, 2019 20:33:44 GMT -5
Absolutely. You can read books on masters and see sages on batgap. And come away with the impression that butter doesn't melt in their mouths or they are sitting on a mountain top untouched When I fell awake being with different teachers after I could see yes im in That but I also have effed up parts. Now twenty years later it seems less so. But like today at work a customer really pissed me off on one level but I could also see the play on another level. It's very cool when you can actually see both like that. .... Or let them play mom to a couple of teenagers for a week. I would likely turn into a child abuser and Maniac would have to loathe me.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 20:35:29 GMT -5
Post by krsnaraja on Mar 12, 2019 20:35:29 GMT -5
Googled ( from a blogger who watches Burt Harding's views on You Tube ) Pure feeling is pure awareness. When you listen to your favorite piece of music you might literally forget yourself. In this 'self-forgetting' there is joy and innocence -- the true spiritual qualities. In other words, the qualities that we cherish such as freedom, love, joy, peace, happiness and inner fulfillment are not qualities at all -- they are the 'NOW' itself. Did you ever feel so drawn to something or someone where you actually disappeared? In that moment you were 'real' and 'egoless.' Did you ever watch performers perform incredible feats of focused energy? In that moment there was no ego (no personal 'I') but pure action emerging from the focused 'now.' Did you ever laugh so heartily that tears ran down your cheeks? In that moment there was spontaneous action from pure awareness. Pure feeling is always 'positive' because it brings out our true natural being of love and oneness. That's actually pretty good, but I would not say pure feeling is always positive. Positive/negative happens when mind distorts pure feeling with judgment, and makes it impure. Feeling is simply feeling. That's what I do. When I have this feeling, I don't describe it as negative/positive. When I court a lady I say, " My dear, my feelings for you is pure.."
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 20:36:58 GMT -5
Post by krsnaraja on Mar 12, 2019 20:36:58 GMT -5
On that note, I watched the movie "Free Solo" yesterday, and found it really interesting how the dude was clearly not afraid of death and yet was still completely and totally driven by the idea of 'being perfect.' So yeah....seemingly that fear of death CAN go, and one still not be SR. But it's a movie, right? I'm having trouble reconciling not caring if one lives or dies, and at the same time needing to live perfectly. Wouldn't both concerns fall away simultaneously? A wise man does not grieve for the sick or downtrodden.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 20:41:16 GMT -5
Post by psychoslice on Mar 12, 2019 20:41:16 GMT -5
Coming from the Ocean as a droplet is fantastic, you cannot fully experience your life if you spend your whole life at home with your parents. As a separate being we can experience life and all its wonders, as a Whole we are Life, but with no experience of that which we are. I use to continue thinking that I was the Whole, but then I kept forgetting that I was separate as an organism, an organism that was here to experience that which the Whole could never. We are very lucky to be here to experience this wonderful world, we as the personality or persona which we all wear and identify our selves with, have only this one chance to experience this world. I believe that many beliefs such as religion keeps us from fully experiencing this world, it makes us lazy, believing that if it all turns out wrong we can make it up in anther life, or a wonderful place called heaven. Yes we are One with the Source, but as the Source we miss out on so much, just as we are one with our family, we also miss out on so much if we don't leave the family and make our own life separate from the family, but always knowing we belong to the family.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 21:10:15 GMT -5
Post by krsnaraja on Mar 12, 2019 21:10:15 GMT -5
Coming from the Ocean as a droplet is fantastic, you cannot fully experience your life if you spend your whole life at home with your parents. As a separate being we can experience life and all its wonders, as a Whole we are Life, but with no experience of that which we are. I use to continue thinking that I was the Whole, but then I kept forgetting that I was separate as an organism, an organism that was here to experience that which the Whole could never. We are very lucky to be here to experience this wonderful world, we as the personality or persona which we all wear and identify our selves with, have only this one chance to experience this world. I believe that many beliefs such as religion keeps us from fully experiencing this world, it makes us lazy, believing that if it all turns out wrong we can make it up in anther life, or a wonderful place called heaven. Yes we are One with the Source, but as the Source we miss out on so much, just as we are one with our family, we also miss out on so much if we don't leave the family and make our own life separate from the family, but always knowing we belong to the family. I hate to use ocean as a metaphor for this Whole thing. And I is just a drop of that ocean /wholeness. I like to say, New York City as replacement metaphor substitute for ocean I am a New Yorker trying to earn a living, enjoying life in this ocean. I go to the top of the Empire Estate building and view the vastness of this ocean New York which I can't become the whole of New York unless the people of New York elect me as Mayor of New York City.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 21:35:03 GMT -5
Post by psychoslice on Mar 12, 2019 21:35:03 GMT -5
Coming from the Ocean as a droplet is fantastic, you cannot fully experience your life if you spend your whole life at home with your parents. As a separate being we can experience life and all its wonders, as a Whole we are Life, but with no experience of that which we are. I use to continue thinking that I was the Whole, but then I kept forgetting that I was separate as an organism, an organism that was here to experience that which the Whole could never. We are very lucky to be here to experience this wonderful world, we as the personality or persona which we all wear and identify our selves with, have only this one chance to experience this world. I believe that many beliefs such as religion keeps us from fully experiencing this world, it makes us lazy, believing that if it all turns out wrong we can make it up in anther life, or a wonderful place called heaven. Yes we are One with the Source, but as the Source we miss out on so much, just as we are one with our family, we also miss out on so much if we don't leave the family and make our own life separate from the family, but always knowing we belong to the family. I hate to use ocean as a metaphor for this Whole thing. And I is just a drop of that ocean /wholeness. I like to say, New York City as replacement metaphor substitute for ocean I am a New Yorker trying to earn a living, enjoying life in this ocean. I go to the top of the Empire Estate building and view the vastness of this ocean New York which I can't become the whole of New York unless the people of New York elect me as Mayor of New York City. Ha, it really doesn't matter what metaphor we use, the metaphor isn't that which IS, but yea, I like the New York metaphor, but really who wants to be mayor of new York city lol.
|
|