|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 11, 2020 13:37:16 GMT -5
I couldn't find the cartoon clip I was looking for, this was a close second.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 11, 2020 13:38:15 GMT -5
Interesting. I believe that the point that "there is no birth and no death for YOU" hence "what does this karma and reincarnation business have to do with YOU?" misses that there is a reason for which we are here. It is like saying that whatever you dream has nothing to do with the awake you, which I believe to be incorrect. The fact that many of us ignore the connection between our dreams and our awake selves, doesn't mean that there isn't a connection. Even more, ignorance of that connection is detrimental both to you and YOU. Also "ultimate stateless state of being" besides being an oxymoron, this is like if I don't understand beyond that point then there is nothing over there. I agree that we should recognize our intellectual and intuitive limitations, that we should be careful not to convert our beliefs and expectations into truths, that pushing beyond a limit is futile, but I disagree that if we can't know everything then what we can know is less valuable even unimportant (as the "nullifying bliss" seems to promote). There is formless okay; there is beyond our physical senses of course, but this should entice us to wish, and push to know beyond form, and beyond the physical senses. There is direct knowledge. But that's not what I'm saying. YOU exist prior to both the waking you and the dream you. Dream you and waking you belong to one and the same context. That's why comparing your dream experience to your waking experience will only help you learning more about you, but nothing about YOU. I believe that you are a YOU who are enrolled in an educational process, are taught concepts which you then practice. YOU and you are the same in different situations, like somebody while at home, at school, listening to a lesson, practicing what he learned. You are taught while sleeping, practice while (rem) dreaming, and practicing the basics while awake. Dreams in which you are an observer are teaching dreams, dreams in which you are the first person are practice dreams, of the same concepts. Dream experiences teach about YOU and concepts YOU need to know. YOU and you are the same in different situations. Awake experiences, rem-dreams, non-ream-sleep reflect symbolically the same concepts.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 11, 2020 13:43:02 GMT -5
No. There is nothing you have access to that isn't a belief. every perception results in a belief. If it isn't a belief, then what is it? Asking for a friend. I don't think there is something that isn't a belief. It is like there is nothing that isn't changing.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 11, 2020 13:52:07 GMT -5
Ha! Liberation, of course. Yes, my perspective my differ slightly. It's probably due to how I use the word 'exist'. To me, both self and Self exist, but only Self is real, self is false. Realizing that is what SR is all about. If you want to get a bit more metaphorically, I really like how AW put it here: "The universe is the game of the Self, which plays hide and seek forever and ever. When it plays ‘hide,’ it plays it so well, hides so cleverly, that it pretends to be all of us, and all things whatsoever. And we don’t know it because it’s playing ‘hide.’ But when it plays ‘seek,’ it enters onto a path of yoga, and—through following this path—it wakes up, and the scales fall from one’s eyes." I actually made the point once that in order to function properly in society, a self (to some degree) is required. In the past we used the mirage analogy. Realizing that the oasis that you are seeing in the far distance isn't a real oasis but only a mirage doesn't make the mirage go away. But the realization puts an end to the desire to ride out there and fill your canteen with fresh water. Same with Self and self. I have no issue with the reincarnation theory if we think of it in terms of a stream of consciousness and as long as it is clear what exactly is coming and going. But what I do have an issue with is the idea that we are here to prove our worthiness and that the purpose of life is to move on to higher, more exalted realms (be that the astral sphere or parabrahman). I think this is my major disagreement with Inavalan and also Ouroboros (if I understood him correctly). From my POV existence arises with distinction (with thinking), and in this sense self is not necessary for functionality. A way to investigate what's being pointed to is to stop thinking, and find out if the body continues to function intelligently in the total absence of imagination. What happens when all internal commentary and all ideas cease? What is seen? I basically agree with this. Maybe I should clarify. By self here I don't mean a sense of self. What I mean is an identity, a story that is necessary to function in society, like a name, that identifies you as unique from others. If you don't have that, society doesn't know what to do with you. You can't be categorized, you don't fit in because you can't be assigned a place in society and so you cannot function in society. But sages can function very well in society, because they can remember their name and date of birth and vita when required, which means they can at least project a self when required, even though there may not be an actual sense of self the entire time. Let's say you fly to another country. On arrival, you are asked to fill out an arrival form with your name, date and place of birth, health condition, itinerary etc. You can do that easily. When they check your passport and ask you "So you are Bob from America?" you say "Yes, that's me." What you have done here is projecting a self. It's the only way you can get thru customs. If you wouldn't do that, they wouldn't know what to do with you and probably lock you away. That's what I mean by a self being required in order to function in society. Projecting a self is the most natural thing to do as adults (not so easy for little children though). And it's the only way to get along smoothly in a system of names and numbers. That doesn't mean though that there has to be a sense of actually being a name and a number, even though a lot of adults tend to identify as a name and a number at some point.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 11, 2020 14:39:17 GMT -5
But (and this is probably superfluous, because I've gone into it before with you), this denies how one's ability to function in the world occurred in the first place. I've mentioned feral children before. If you merely gave a baby food shelter and clothing, but no exposure to language and culture, they would not be able to function in life. IOW, upon growing up they could not function in the manner zd describes. IOW, to be able to live as zd describes, one has to have once upon a time acquired the skills to be able to function without thinking. I don't know how this could be more clear. The body could not "continue to function intelligently in the absence of imagination", if it never learned to do so in the first place, and this is the necessary purpose of acquiring a ~persona~, IOW growing up as an ordinary child, acquiring language and skills. I don't disagree with this. Given that humans are raised in an environment where abstract distinctions are not recognized as imaginary, all humans acquire cultural indoctrination and assume the same assumptions as the adults who unconsciously indoctrinate them. As adults, all seekers start the journey toward discovering "what's going on" under the illusion that they are separate volitional entities "in here" interacting with an exterior world "out there." That is simply the human condition in its current state of evolution. The intelligence of what humans are is vast beyond comprehension, and children learn about the world directly as well as indirectly through abstraction and symbology. As a fun thought experiment, one might ponder what would happen if a child were raised by mute parents on a desert island who never used symbology to educate the child. The child would definitely learn a great deal from watching and interacting with its parents, but whether it would acquire some sort of an internal dialogue on its own or how it would use it's innate ability to imagine distinctions is unknowable. I suspect that such a child would learn about the world and become functional adults in the same way as various species of highly intelligent crows do, who, without abstract symbology, teach their offspring numerous survival mechanisms and efficient ways of doing things to sustain life. The crow or child would learn in the same way that a child learns to ride a bicycle. Such a child would not become "feral" in the same way that the term is usually used. In any event this kind of conjecture doesn't address the main point that I typically make. Given that the symbology of the culture is internalized subconsciously in all functional adults, the question is, "What happens if the thinking mind becomes silent?" This is not a simple thing to investigate because most adults have a monkey-mind internal dialogue that, in Tolle's words, involves "compulsively-incessant thought." Nevertheless, many people pursuing ND have attained a state of sustained internal silence. In many cases that state occurred suddenly and sometimes lasted for long periods of time. In most of the cases I've read about such a state of silence resulted in major realizations about the nature of reality. It happened to Gary Weber in the middle of a workday, and he claimed that he functioned more efficiently in silence than when his mind was talkative. Norio Kushi fell into silence after curiously watching the spaces between thoughts. His mind remained silent for two weeks, after which he attained what most of the forum calls "SR." Terry Stephens fell into that state for three months, after which a "download phenomena" occurred that resulted in his awakening. Paul Morgan-Somers claims that every time his mind went silent between the ages of about 16 and 20 all kinds of non-local phenomena and realizations occurred. I'm guessing that it would take at least one year of regularly shifting attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception before most people could be aware of internal silence or what is seen without the mind commenting upon the silence and sights or thinking about the silence and sights. After a year, it would become easier and easier to remain silently aware, and the silent awareness would almost surely result in numerous insights into the nature, functionality, and intelligence of what we are. All that one can do is point in that general direction, and let those who are interested in the associated truth claims pursue them. Today, I have a much greater appreciation of Ramana's silence, and what lay behind it, than in the past, and there is no doubt in my mind that silence was his deepest teaching. Thanks for this. I agree on this. (Feral means raised by animals). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I remember (almost) my first quiet mind (as an adult). I had gotten a job as a ground man for a tree company. Basically all I had to do was drag cut limbs from the back of the yard to the chipper and chip them, and clean up. This was 1976. I had been taught your ATA-T, but of course it wasn't called that. It was called Noticing, it was sensing, noticing colors, for example, and material objects, for the eyes. Noticing sounds for the ears, tastes for tongue, odors for nose, anything (mostly) the hands touched, but anything through the skin. We were not told to try to silence the mind, but it had been discussed. IOW, silencing the mind was not specifically part of Noticing. So one day I was dragging brush across a yard, arrived at the chipper and knew in my head there had been no thoughts, for about 10 seconds. And then thoughts rushed in, Oh Wow, no thoughts. I say almost because the previous year sometimes I got so tired of my constant-thinking-mind I tried to figure out ways to make it quiet. One means was watching the movement of my legs while ice skating. I could get to a silent mind for a few seconds at a time. And then these moments brought memories of a silent mind as a kid. One way, I loved to search for 4 leaf clovers. Another, watching my kite. Another, fishing, I could quiet the mind by watching my cork. I deliberately sought these activities. At church I would lay down on my back and watch the ceiling. It was made from tiles about a foot square. I taught myself "centering prayer" by counting the holes in one side of a tile. I'm pretty sure there were 20 holes. I surmised that, but never getting to 20, my focus would always blurr before I got to 20. Another thing, I could watch a cloudless sky, and very shortly begin to see hundreds of tiny dots of light shooting in random directions for about 4-5 inches, and then disappear. That was very cool. Later, reading, I surmised it is prana. And I could stare into a cloudless sky and see a colorless pattern of energy in a kind of moving mandala, moving out from the center and expanding and disappearing. The pattern was about 10 inches in diameter. I've seen it copied in still print numerous times, usually colored, but mine had no color. If I can find a picture, I'll post the picture. But you focus on one specific spot, don't blink and don't shift the eyes. It works on still water also, but a cloudless sky is easier to find than a still lake or pond. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ An interesting aside. Almost 7 years ago I visited my oldest daughter across the country, Washington state. My grandson was 18 months at the time, and knew some sign language. He had taught himself. Daughter noticed from time to time he was making odd hand signals, she didn't know anything about them. So she decided to watch him. He was allowed some computer time (he loved to watch trains for one thing). Daughter had let him watch a program called Young Einsteins, but she was busy during, so until she began to observe him she hadn't noticed he had learned some sign language just by watching the program. Watching and learning, she now knew what he had been trying to communicate. I remember a few "words". Raising hands over the head and shaking hands quickly meant, I'm done. He used this in the context of eating, (I'm through), in the context of play, (I've had enough of this). Flicking one ear with a finger meant he was ready to go to bed and go to sleep. That's all that come to mind, but he had about 4 or 5 more. ...I would recommend sign language to any parent with a child this young. And he understood English. Daughter warned me you couldn't say go outside in his presence, because he would demand to go outside. This is pretty close. Picture the pattern emerging from the center, moving to the edge, and then disappearing, constant movement. www.123rf.com/photo_58099217_stock-vector-symmetrical-circular-pattern-mandala-coloring-page-for-adults-.html This is more-so what it looks like. www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2z1EAihGNYThis is quite curious, I never realized it was a Torus. (I guess where it seems to disappear to the outside, it is actually moving back to the center). However, that's not quite true, for year and years I could not tell if the pattern was emerging from the center, or moving from the outside to the center and disappearing into the center. Then one day I could see clearly, the pattern was emerging from the center. So, it (now) seems I was seeing both. It's a torus, so it is a repeating pattern. And, also never knew, it seems another name for a torus, is a vortex, or at least a torus can be a vortex. Cool, way cool. I first could see this about age nine, I know, from remembering fishing alone at nine at my uncle's pond. It's sunny, I'm going outside to look at it...
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 11, 2020 14:40:50 GMT -5
But that's not what I'm saying. YOU exist prior to both the waking you and the dream you. Dream you and waking you belong to one and the same context. That's why comparing your dream experience to your waking experience will only help you learning more about you, but nothing about YOU. I believe that you are a YOU who are enrolled in an educational process, are taught concepts which you then practice. YOU and you are the same in different situations, like somebody while at home, at school, listening to a lesson, practicing what he learned. You are taught while sleeping, practice while (rem) dreaming, and practicing the basics while awake. Dreams in which you are an observer are teaching dreams, dreams in which you are the first person are practice dreams, of the same concepts. Dream experiences teach about YOU and concepts YOU need to know. YOU and you are the same in different situations. Awake experiences, rem-dreams, non-ream-sleep reflect symbolically the same concepts. You were once a baby. When you were five minutes old, what beliefs did you have?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 11, 2020 14:49:56 GMT -5
From my POV existence arises with distinction (with thinking), and in this sense self is not necessary for functionality. A way to investigate what's being pointed to is to stop thinking, and find out if the body continues to function intelligently in the total absence of imagination. What happens when all internal commentary and all ideas cease? What is seen? I basically agree with this. Maybe I should clarify. By self here I don't mean a sense of self. What I mean is an identity, a story that is necessary to function in society, like a name, that identifies you as unique from others. If you don't have that, society doesn't know what to do with you. You can't be categorized, you don't fit in because you can't be assigned a place in society and so you cannot function in society. But sages can function very well in society, because they can remember their name and date of birth and vita when required, which means they can at least project a self when required, even though there may not be an actual sense of self the entire time. Let's say you fly to another country. On arrival, you are asked to fill out an arrival form with your name, date and place of birth, health condition, itinerary etc. You can do that easily. When they check your passport and ask you "So you are Bob from America?" you say "Yes, that's me." What you have done here is projecting a self. It's the only way you can get thru customs. If you wouldn't do that, they wouldn't know what to do with you and probably lock you away. That's what I mean by a self being required in order to function in society. Projecting a self is the most natural thing to do as adults (not so easy for little children though). And it's the only way to get along smoothly in a system of names and numbers. That doesn't mean though that there has to be a sense of actually being a name and a number, even though a lot of adults tend to identify as a name and a number at some point. Okay, but playing the devil's advocate, is the recognition and acceptance that other people imagine that everyone is a SVP, and appropriately responding to their ideas about that, the same as "projecting" anything? Even in the case of the passport/customs thingy no thought about self-identification needs to occur in order to satisfy the officials; the whole transaction can occur in internal silence. It can all happen without any form of reflection, and this is what Zen people call "thinking that is not-thinking" or "non-abidance in mind." IOW, a sage doesn't have to put on an act at being someone with an identity in order to interact intelligently with people in any situation. S/he knows directly, at an internalized subconscious level, what's going on in the same way that s/he knows what a tree IS without a conceptual overlay. I agree that everything can happen without a sense of self, but I'm questioning the idea that projection of a fictitious identity, as a psychological act, is what's happening. It seems simpler and more direct than that. If we consider someone like Ramana, did he ever say anything that would indicate the projection of a self in order to function within a social setting, or were his words and actions indicative of something more like blood cells knowing where to go next without the necessity of anything as abstract as intent?
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 11, 2020 15:04:24 GMT -5
I believe that you are a YOU who are enrolled in an educational process, are taught concepts which you then practice. YOU and you are the same in different situations, like somebody while at home, at school, listening to a lesson, practicing what he learned. You are taught while sleeping, practice while (rem) dreaming, and practicing the basics while awake. Dreams in which you are an observer are teaching dreams, dreams in which you are the first person are practice dreams, of the same concepts. Dream experiences teach about YOU and concepts YOU need to know. YOU and you are the same in different situations. Awake experiences, rem-dreams, non-ream-sleep reflect symbolically the same concepts. You were once a baby. When you were five minutes old, what beliefs did you have? You aren't what you consciously think you are. Your reality is created by your subconscious. There is no objective reality that the conscious you observes. A dog creates its own reality; a tree too; a pebble too; each one at its own level of evolvement. No two realities are identical. This is why apparently profound what-ifs are meaningless, because everything happens at the subconscious' level, that ties everything. The awake-conscious you doesn't know such things because it was brainwashed, in its section of the space-time-probability sandbox that this physical universe is, by well meaning co-participants, not by design, but by randomness. There are relatively better sections, and relatively worse sections in the sandbox.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 11, 2020 15:14:36 GMT -5
You were once a baby. When you were five minutes old, what beliefs did you have? You aren't what you consciously think you are. Your reality is created by your subconscious. There is no objective reality that the conscious you observes. A dog creates its own reality; a tree too; a pebble too; each one at its own level of evolvement. No two realities are identical. This is why apparently profound what-ifs are meaningless, because everything happens at the subconscious' level, that ties everything. The awake-conscious you doesn't know such things because it was brainwashed, in its section of the space-time-probability sandbox that this physical universe is, by well meaning co-participants, not by design, but by randomness. There are relatively better sections, and relatively worse sections in the sandbox. That didn't answer my question. When you were five minutes old, there was a body, there. The mind existed as attention. Did you have any beliefs? (If you answered, I didn't get the answer).
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 11, 2020 15:23:48 GMT -5
You aren't what you consciously think you are. Your reality is created by your subconscious. There is no objective reality that the conscious you observes. A dog creates its own reality; a tree too; a pebble too; each one at its own level of evolvement. No two realities are identical. This is why apparently profound what-ifs are meaningless, because everything happens at the subconscious' level, that ties everything. The awake-conscious you doesn't know such things because it was brainwashed, in its section of the space-time-probability sandbox that this physical universe is, by well meaning co-participants, not by design, but by randomness. There are relatively better sections, and relatively worse sections in the sandbox. That didn't answer my question. When you were five minutes old, there was a body, there. The mind existed as attention. Did you have any beliefs? (If you answered, I didn't get the answer). Read again. If I believed that you are genuinely interested, I would spend more time explaining. But you aren't. You want to prove me wrong, and I don't do that.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 11, 2020 15:36:37 GMT -5
That didn't answer my question. When you were five minutes old, there was a body, there. The mind existed as attention. Did you have any beliefs? (If you answered, I didn't get the answer). Read again. If I believed that you are genuinely interested, I would spend more time explaining. But you aren't. You want to prove me wrong, and I don't do that. I will read it again...several times...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2020 15:39:30 GMT -5
I was in a discussion recently in which the moderator of a forum kept talking about paradoxes. At some point I asked, "If the thinking mind becomes totally silent, are there any paradoxes?" That question totally stopped his mind because he had no idea how to answer the question.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 11, 2020 15:44:09 GMT -5
OK, this is exactly it, what I have been able to see since I was 9, the one on the right, tiny hole in the center, the Horn Torus. But shift the view to precisely overhead. And if you look at it from the "bottom", the pattern is emerging from the center. But I have always only seen it in 2D (like a flat TV screen), so I never realized it's a torus (or vortex). cosmometry.net/the-torus---dynamic-flow-processOK, went to site. This is it. Try it, focus at one spot in a cloudless sky, as long as you can. Don't blink, don't shift you view. It's very cool. antiprism.com/album/misc/spindle_tor1b_anim.gif
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2020 15:46:40 GMT -5
So, it took a while for me to come back to this. And what I have learned from AW's lecture on Buddhist philosophy is that most disagreements with other related teachings is really just semantics. In a way, by taking a purely scholarly approach, you probably could fill books by outlining the differences, but at the same time, by taking a purely practical approach, that would just be indulging in semantics. Because ultimately, what the Buddha calls nirvana, what Ramana calls sahaja samadhi, what UG calls the natural state and what A-H call alignment is pointing to one and the thing (or no-thing), a kind of ultimate stateless state of being. SR means seeing from a context prior to birth and death. It is the realization that there is no birth and no death for YOU. That's why I asked, what does this karma and reincarnation business have to do with YOU? Notice that I didn't ask, "what does this have to do with you?" There is only what YOU are. So where could YOU possibly go and disappear to (or from)? So SR actually pulls the rug out from under such considerations, entirely. It's like, once you realize that you don't actually own a car, the question about what to do with it after it breaks down suddenly becomes redundant. Sure, you could continue to play around with different scenarios in your mind, just for the sake of mind play, but no matter how much you are engaged in that kind of mind play, it will always be crystal clear that there's no real substance to it, that you don't actually own a car, and therefore ultimately, what happens to that imaginary car after it breaks down - if you get a new one right away or if this will be your last car - is of no actual practical concern to you and has no actual practical consequences for you either. Interesting. I believe that the point that "there is no birth and no death for YOU" hence "what does this karma and reincarnation business have to do with YOU?" misses that there is a reason for which we are here. It is like saying that whatever you dream has nothing to do with the awake you, which I believe to be incorrect. The fact that many of us ignore the connection between our dreams and our awake selves, doesn't mean that there isn't a connection. Even more, ignorance of that connection is detrimental both to you and YOU. Also "ultimate stateless state of being" besides being an oxymoron, this is like if I don't understand beyond that point then there is nothing over there. I agree that we should recognize our intellectual and intuitive limitations, that we should be careful not to convert our beliefs and expectations into truths, that pushing beyond a limit is futile, but I disagree that if we can't know everything then what we can know is less valuable even unimportant (as the "nullifying bliss" seems to promote). There is formless okay; there is beyond our physical senses of course, but this should entice us to wish, and push to know beyond form, and beyond the physical senses. There is direct knowledge. Secular humanist culture is no stranger to a sense of awe, which is where the turn from intellect to emotions, and a connection to something deeper, wider and non-material can be found within that culture. One common conclusion they come to is that the reason for consciousness is so "that the Universe may see and know itself". What are your thoughts on that? To be clear, this was an answer to that question that I subscribed to at one point, but wouldn't necessarily advocate for in most situations these days. I'm just genuinely curious as to your reaction to it at this particular point of the dialog.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2020 16:02:20 GMT -5
I assume you meant liberation. Or maybe not. www.google.com/search?q=libation+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS894US894&oq=libation&aqs=chrome.3.0i433i457j69i57j0i433j0i131i433j46i175i199j0l2j46.12794j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8OK, let me get this right. There is something that searches, seeks, explores, wants Truth. The search is on, until there is a realization, that there is no searcher? But something still remains. Reefs and zd still move and act in the world, think (when necessary), feels. Are you saying that that something that still remains, is merely like a shadow? That this something that remains, that to others still seems to be Reefs (or zd) acting in the world, is merely an insubstantial shadow, or mirror reflection? If you didn't talk about it to others, they wouldn't know there is actually no Reefs present, no zd present, that the Whole is masking as Reefs or zd. I of course have been through this over a dozen times with zd (that's why including his name here). He never breaks character (in a manner of speaking). But I think you have a little different view (but maybe not to any significant extent). So yes, I am still interested. I obviously have a different view, that, ultimately, the universe, is up to something else. I always put it this way with zd, You are accurate up to this point, I have no problem with any of this, it actually fits quite well in my "paradigm". However, there is something ~on the other side of up to this point~. And then, our conversation (sdp and zd) always ends there. You see, right here, is the distinction between essence and ego/personality/cultural self. But you and zd have a different view of what essence is, from sdp. I have no problem with stopping here. This is as far as words can go. So we can probe and explore just a little, more. Or not. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ But you consider it outside the realm of possibility, that the same ~"essence"~-Dalai Lama has re-incarnated 14 times? (The same politician-Dalai Lama has existed, only just this one time. The politician-fun-loving-irresistible-fuzzy~warm-grinning-black glasses-Dalai Lama, has lived only this once). Ha! Liberation, of course. Yes, my perspective my differ slightly. It's probably due to how I use the word 'exist'. To me, both self and Self exist, but only Self is real, self is false. Realizing that is what SR is all about. If you want to get a bit more metaphorically, I really like how AW put it here: "The universe is the game of the Self, which plays hide and seek forever and ever. When it plays ‘hide,’ it plays it so well, hides so cleverly, that it pretends to be all of us, and all things whatsoever. And we don’t know it because it’s playing ‘hide.’ But when it plays ‘seek,’ it enters onto a path of yoga, and—through following this path—it wakes up, and the scales fall from one’s eyes." I actually made the point once that in order to function properly in society, a self (to some degree) is required. In the past we used the mirage analogy. Realizing that the oasis that you are seeing in the far distance isn't a real oasis but only a mirage doesn't make the mirage go away. But the realization puts an end to the desire to ride out there and fill your canteen with fresh water. Same with Self and self. I have no issue with the reincarnation theory if we think of it in terms of a stream of consciousness and as long as it is clear what exactly is coming and going. But what I do have an issue with is the idea that we are here to prove our worthiness and that the purpose of life is to move on to higher, more exalted realms (be that the astral sphere or parabrahman). I think this is my major disagreement with Inavalan and also Ouroboros (if I understood him correctly). The mind+emotions walk a plank from the ship of culture out over a vast ocean devoid of any existential meaning that can be apprehended by anything but certain whispers of suggestion. The non-dual pointers, jab the back, moving the scalawag along, step, by step. Jump! .. ain't nowhere left to go! .. Jump!
|
|