|
Post by laughter on Oct 24, 2019 14:43:39 GMT -5
Belief in a fairytale about an afterlife can short-circuit the survival instinct, no doubt -- and when you think about that, it's really quite a testament to the power of mind. In less extreme versions, it can mitigate the fear and the dread. But when a truly "SR peep" tells you that they've lost the fear of death, it's not based on a belief in a fairytale. Of all the things people who claim SR write about, it's the one and only commonality I've been able to discern in the writing about how the experience of life unfolds after the realization. Some people will write about peace, joy and ease and equanimity, and while I can always see where they're coming from, that is inevitably, as all experience, presented in subjective terms. I read something once when I was in my early thirties about death. The author wrote something like this: "when I was young I never thought about it, but then, one day, the thought of my own death occurred to me. From then on, this would recur, at greater frequency as I got older, until one day, from that day onward, not a day went by when I didn't think of it at least once". Perhaps this acted as some sort of post-hypnotic suggestion but I found that the same happened for me. Every now and then, I'd contemplate not existing, and I'd feel a visceral panic at the thought -- it would be short, but would involve elevated heart rate and shortness of breath. I went looking for this, in the meditation, "afterward" .. nowhere to be found. And dude, I ain't got noooo explanation for what happens once the body goes, other than, in terms of anything that defines me as a human being in any conventional sense is bound to be inevitably and completely obliterated by time. I don't invest any hope in any sort of potential disembodied personal existence independent of a physical body. While I used to know this as a skeptic, it's different now, but not by much, in relative terms. That's insightful of you to see how these ideas you have about the "SR" might be points of attachment for the false sense of self. Bringing this to the forefront of mind is the first step, and I know you know what to do as the next. For as long as you think that SR is a step too far it's a step that won't happen. In terms of who to trust or who's full of sh!t - insofar as those thoughts might happen .. look inward to your own authority, and inquire as to: who is it that's interested in the possibility of truth? There's more I could write about conditioning generally, but this is already a mini-wall, and I don't want to stretch your interest. So I'll just say this: this objection you have to the notion of pain is an opportunity for you, but not in any relative sense. For example, you'll never resolve it by discovering how some people can get quite expert at being free of it.
Like I told my shrink. I've been more often afraid of living than of dying. I can relate to welcoming death as an anesthetic. Pain's not cool. I don't like that aspect of death, but if it's quick and painless. Heck. If there is or isn't an afterlife doesn't matter. If there isn't, you won't live (after) to regret it. I fear having to watch loved ones suffer. That guy on the news who spoke of having to watch his wife drown during hurricane Dorian in the Bahamas scared the bejesus out of me. Now as to my potential for SR, your statement sounds a littlle cause and effecty. So a positive attitude increases the likelihood? I just know it's not in this body/mind's hands. Plus, I've seen enough to know, I ain't missing much. Not to offend anyone, because as normal, breathing, humans, this is a good lot. As God, whether in or out of a dream, well there are still some deficits--which I admittedly share, probably in greater proprtion than most. What you're missing is that horror at the thought of what happens to your family will change to something that won't cause you any pain. You see, there's an incredibly deep poignancy to any and in every instant as it dies to the next, and it's completely impersonal, and the pathos involved is so deep, so powerful, that it's only possible to capture it with poetry. That's what you get, instead of the horror, and I have to say, that looking forward to death is actually far more a horror than getting fooled by a fairytale. It's not that SR will cause you to love your people less. Quite the opposite. As far as the cause/effect thing goes, here's how that works. The false self can be defined, succinctly and completely, in mechanistic terms. But this is a one way street. The machine is what obscures the existential truth, but there's no mechanical fix to the occlusion. The existential error definitely has a cause, but the end to it can't be caused, and that's because there's no way to cause you to see what is already the case. There's no way to deliver eternity to you by way of a process.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2019 15:29:59 GMT -5
Belief in a fairytale about an afterlife can short-circuit the survival instinct, no doubt -- and when you think about that, it's really quite a testament to the power of mind. In less extreme versions, it can mitigate the fear and the dread. But when a truly "SR peep" tells you that they've lost the fear of death, it's not based on a belief in a fairytale. Of all the things people who claim SR write about, it's the one and only commonality I've been able to discern in the writing about how the experience of life unfolds after the realization. Some people will write about peace, joy and ease and equanimity, and while I can always see where they're coming from, that is inevitably, as all experience, presented in subjective terms. I read something once when I was in my early thirties about death. The author wrote something like this: "when I was young I never thought about it, but then, one day, the thought of my own death occurred to me. From then on, this would recur, at greater frequency as I got older, until one day, from that day onward, not a day went by when I didn't think of it at least once". Perhaps this acted as some sort of post-hypnotic suggestion but I found that the same happened for me. Every now and then, I'd contemplate not existing, and I'd feel a visceral panic at the thought -- it would be short, but would involve elevated heart rate and shortness of breath. I went looking for this, in the meditation, "afterward" .. nowhere to be found. And dude, I ain't got noooo explanation for what happens once the body goes, other than, in terms of anything that defines me as a human being in any conventional sense is bound to be inevitably and completely obliterated by time. I don't invest any hope in any sort of potential disembodied personal existence independent of a physical body. While I used to know this as a skeptic, it's different now, but not by much, in relative terms. That's insightful of you to see how these ideas you have about the "SR" might be points of attachment for the false sense of self. Bringing this to the forefront of mind is the first step, and I know you know what to do as the next. For as long as you think that SR is a step too far it's a step that won't happen. In terms of who to trust or who's full of sh!t - insofar as those thoughts might happen .. look inward to your own authority, and inquire as to: who is it that's interested in the possibility of truth?
There's more I could write about conditioning generally, but this is already a mini-wall, and I don't want to stretch your interest. So I'll just say this: this objection you have to the notion of pain is an opportunity for you, but not in any relative sense. For example, you'll never resolve it by discovering how some people can get quite expert at being free of it.
Like I told my shrink. I've been more often afraid of living than of dying. I can relate to welcoming death as an anesthetic. Pain's not cool. I don't like that aspect of death, but if it's quick and painless. Heck. If there is or isn't an afterlife doesn't matter. If there isn't, you won't live (after) to regret it.I fear having to watch loved ones suffer. That guy on the news who spoke of having to watch his wife drown during hurricane Dorian in the Bahamas scared the bejesus out of me. Now as to my potential for SR, your statement sounds a littlle cause and effecty. So a positive attitude increases the likelihood? I just know it's not in this body/mind's hands. Plus, I've seen enough to know, I ain't missing much. Not to offend anyone, because as normal, breathing, humans, this is a good lot. As God, whether in or out of a dream, well there are still some deficits--which I admittedly share, probably in greater proprtion than most. Both honest and profound.
And I don't care how enlightened or awake one is, no is going to be lining up to watch loved ones suffer....(well, unless their loved ones are really, really annoying...............joking....of course. )
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 29, 2019 8:23:48 GMT -5
Found this interesting Q&A with Alan Watts: Very good point. It points out the danger of separating Self and self, the permanent from the impermanent. This concession to the intellect often used as a pedagogic fulcrum if appropriated by the ego can provide it cover. Yes. It's what I call identity poker. It's a very popular game. And as UG keeps pointing out, it's addictive.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 29, 2019 9:02:23 GMT -5
Very good point. It points out the danger of separating Self and self, the permanent from the impermanent. This concession to the intellect often used as a pedagogic fulcrum if appropriated by the ego can provide it cover. For decades I was a stoic -- not that I thought of myself that way at the time, but stoicism is sort of embedded into Western culture, especially for males. The difference between material, relative witnessing of the stoic and the witnessing Watts is talking about is a realization that distinguishes between the content of mind - the voice that some of us can hear in our head - and what we really are, which is the space into which that voice appears and that which the voice appears to. To me, this was the most significant of the existential realizations. My head was in the tiger's mouth at that point. But even then, I could see how what Watts is talking about by way of warning is salient. Even that is a realization someone could get attached to, even though it's not the material detachment of the stoics, it's still a place someone could get stuck. I think stoicism is a very rational position and my guess is people who consider themselves stoics aren't stoics by accident. A lot of very influential people of the past were actually stoics. Probably most stoics will think their position is just common sense. As you say, it is very much embedded in western culture. And so most of what we used to consider good common sense is probably connected to this philosophy. When I read Montaigne, it always made sense to me why he preferred that perspective given the circumstances of his life, but from my perspective, it always seemed a bit of a sour grapes philosophy of life, basically the opposite of the A-H 'hands in the clay' approach. One focuses on existing to survive, the other on existing to thrive.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 29, 2019 16:40:54 GMT -5
For decades I was a stoic -- not that I thought of myself that way at the time, but stoicism is sort of embedded into Western culture, especially for males. The difference between material, relative witnessing of the stoic and the witnessing Watts is talking about is a realization that distinguishes between the content of mind - the voice that some of us can hear in our head - and what we really are, which is the space into which that voice appears and that which the voice appears to. To me, this was the most significant of the existential realizations. My head was in the tiger's mouth at that point. But even then, I could see how what Watts is talking about by way of warning is salient. Even that is a realization someone could get attached to, even though it's not the material detachment of the stoics, it's still a place someone could get stuck. I think stoicism is a very rational position and my guess is people who consider themselves stoics aren't stoics by accident. A lot of very influential people of the past were actually stoics. Probably most stoics will think their position is just common sense. As you say, it is very much embedded in western culture. And so most of what we used to consider good common sense is probably connected to this philosophy. When I read Montaigne, it always made sense to me why he preferred that perspective given the circumstances of his life, but from my perspective, it always seemed a bit of a sour grapes philosophy of life, basically the opposite of the A-H 'hands in the clay' approach. One focuses on existing to survive, the other on existing to thrive. Yes, stoicism is a glass-half-empty perspective, and I think that stems from it's martial origins and influences. It's a fascinating trade-off for the individual, in that they get a quiet mind and excellent coping skills, but sacrifice an inner-emotional connection to the world generally. I'd actually never heard of Montaigne, but reading his wiki page gave me a good chuckle in the context of all this forum culture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2019 8:02:37 GMT -5
I think Emily Wilkins' Patanjali quote is exactly what Watts is talking about. Her view about meditation is a little extreme for my taste, but it is interesting and sure to stir some controversy which is seemingly an attractive thing.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 30, 2019 9:45:05 GMT -5
I think Emily Wilkins' Patanjali quote is exactly what Watts is talking about. Her view about meditation is a little extreme for my taste, but it is interesting and sure to stir some controversy which is seemingly an attractive thing. Witnessing can seem like a state, but it's not so much, really. Not in terms of the "reality" that Emily quotes the historical guy from. In so far as allowance is made for a state of witnessing, is where the Stoics converge with Advaita. It might be useful to talk about a state of witnessing to someone with an initial interest in these topics, but past a certain point, it's nothing short of a deception. A guy asked Niz: "am I the witness?", and Niz replied: "you don't build a house on a bridge".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2019 11:38:12 GMT -5
I think Emily Wilkins' Patanjali quote is exactly what Watts is talking about. Her view about meditation is a little extreme for my taste, but it is interesting and sure to stir some controversy which is seemingly an attractive thing. Witnessing can seem like a state, but it's not so much, really. Not in terms of the "reality" that Emily quotes the historical guy from. In so far as allowance is made for a state of witnessing, is where the Stoics converge with Advaita. It might be useful to talk about a state of witnessing to someone with an initial interest in these topics, but past a certain point, it's nothing short of a deception. A guy asked Niz: "am I the witness?", and Niz replied: "you don't build a house on a bridge". Patanjali is talking about someone who is a doer, driven by mind/thought, thinking they are the witness, as the Niz quote implies. I won't quibble about the term "state." I think also meditation can help uncover when mind is just wearing a clever disguise.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 2, 2019 8:38:21 GMT -5
I think stoicism is a very rational position and my guess is people who consider themselves stoics aren't stoics by accident. A lot of very influential people of the past were actually stoics. Probably most stoics will think their position is just common sense. As you say, it is very much embedded in western culture. And so most of what we used to consider good common sense is probably connected to this philosophy. When I read Montaigne, it always made sense to me why he preferred that perspective given the circumstances of his life, but from my perspective, it always seemed a bit of a sour grapes philosophy of life, basically the opposite of the A-H 'hands in the clay' approach. One focuses on existing to survive, the other on existing to thrive. Yes, stoicism is a glass-half-empty perspective, and I think that stems from it's martial origins and influences. It's a fascinating trade-off for the individual, in that they get a quiet mind and excellent coping skills, but sacrifice an inner-emotional connection to the world generally. I'd actually never heard of Montaigne, but reading his wiki page gave me a good chuckle in the context of all this forum culture. “Life is hard, brutal, punishing, narrow, and confining, a deadly business.” - Epictetus
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 2, 2019 8:44:33 GMT -5
This A-H dialog seems to be related to the witnessing topic:
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 2, 2019 20:09:31 GMT -5
I think stoicism is a very rational position and my guess is people who consider themselves stoics aren't stoics by accident. A lot of very influential people of the past were actually stoics. Probably most stoics will think their position is just common sense. As you say, it is very much embedded in western culture. And so most of what we used to consider good common sense is probably connected to this philosophy. When I read Montaigne, it always made sense to me why he preferred that perspective given the circumstances of his life, but from my perspective, it always seemed a bit of a sour grapes philosophy of life, basically the opposite of the A-H 'hands in the clay' approach. One focuses on existing to survive, the other on existing to thrive. Yes, stoicism is a glass-half-empty perspective, and I think that stems from it's martial origins and influences. It's a fascinating trade-off for the individual, in that they get a quiet mind and excellent coping skills, but sacrifice an inner-emotional connection to the world generally. I'd actually never heard of Montaigne, but reading his wiki page gave me a good chuckle in the context of all this forum culture. If you hadn't heard of Montaigne then you haven't read The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, an absolutely fascinating book I think you'd like. www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Improbable-Robustness-Fragility/dp/081297381X/ref=asc_df_081297381X/?tag=bingshoppinga-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid={creative}&hvpos={adposition}&hvnetw=o&hvrand={random}&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl={devicemodel}&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-4583795260658813&psc=1
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 2, 2019 22:27:37 GMT -5
"Interesting."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 2, 2019 23:02:17 GMT -5
Yes, stoicism is a glass-half-empty perspective, and I think that stems from it's martial origins and influences. It's a fascinating trade-off for the individual, in that they get a quiet mind and excellent coping skills, but sacrifice an inner-emotional connection to the world generally. I'd actually never heard of Montaigne, but reading his wiki page gave me a good chuckle in the context of all this forum culture. “Life is hard, brutal, punishing, narrow, and confining, a deadly business.” - Epictetus "Five to one, baby .. One in five .. No one here, gets, out alive" - Jim Morrison
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2019 12:14:57 GMT -5
“Life is hard, brutal, punishing, narrow, and confining, a deadly business.” - Epictetus "Five to one, baby .. One in five .. No one here, gets, out alive" - Jim Morrison "You know the day destroys the night The night divides the day Tried to run Tried to hide Break on through to the other side"
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 3, 2019 14:57:57 GMT -5
This A-H dialog seems to be related to the witnessing topic: Can you discern how the people-peep-mind would mangle this? And, personally, I wouldn't put the fault entirely with them, but rather, it seems to me to lie in part with the presentation.
|
|