|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2021 7:53:37 GMT -5
This seems pretty personal for someone who claims not to be a person. Does ZD actually claim to not be a person? Correct me if I'm wrong but this seems like a straw man. Surely he would say that THIS manifests as people, trees, animals, and all of the other 10,000 things, but it's the only actor on stage. The distinction is that there is no doer other than that which is doing everything. I resonate with all of that but I can still call myself a person. I just know that none of this is my doing and nothing ever could be "my" doing because it all happens effortlessly, even moments of confusion. zd would affirm this as correct. Also correct, he claims no personal responsibility for his actions. For my post to be correct it needs to add separate volitional to person. ...But it still sounds pretty personal.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Sept 21, 2021 7:59:10 GMT -5
Does ZD actually claim to not be a person? Correct me if I'm wrong but this seems like a straw man. Surely he would say that THIS manifests as people, trees, animals, and all of the other 10,000 things, but it's the only actor on stage. The distinction is that there is no doer other than that which is doing everything. I resonate with all of that but I can still call myself a person. I just know that none of this is my doing and nothing ever could be "my" doing because it all happens effortlessly, even moments of confusion. zd would affirm this as correct. Also correct, he claims no personal responsibility for his actions. For my post to be correct it needs to add separate volitional to person. ...But it still sounds pretty personal. Do you believe you have some control over how you behave in any given moment? To give the example Sam Harris often uses, name a movie. Take as long as you like, and then pick one. Now perhaps there's a movie that didn't come to mind but is relatively well known. Let's say the Wizard of Oz. You are not free to choose what does not occur to you to choose. And what does occur to you (i.e what movies pop up in your mind) is completely out of your control. The final thought of "okay, I'll go with (insert movie here)" is similarly out of your control, and thus there really isn't any truth to the notion of personal responsibility, though there might be merit in the concept of it for sake of social cohesion and the like.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2021 8:07:11 GMT -5
Yea, I was waiting for that. I read you saying, there is no self-referential thinking, as in, there is never self-referential thinking. There is a lot of self-referential thinking (it pops up automatically, the meaning of mechanical, that word you don't like), and the point you made right after that I've been making here for 12 years. Many years ago I said to enigma (a public post), I exist only when I'm practicing. He couldn't understand that in the least. Yes, most of the time I mis-take myself for the small s self. I sometimes remember to remind myself not to say I to that-(self-referential)-thinking. It makes a difference, for us, this is the meaning of sleep. Part of the time, I practice, and then-know that I am my true self, and that's the only time I truly exist. This is the same as the practice of Niz staying in the I Am (staying in Being), that is, trying to for the 3 years, practicing for 3 years. When I first read Niz I understood this. But then Niz made a permanent shift to Being-only (and I'm fairly confident this shift was to the very subtle body spoken of in the 3 bodies of Buddhism videos. Niz did travel the traditional Advaita Vedanta path). I haven't. But I know I haven't. I consider this a mistake zd made, his ~realization~ that it wasn't important, wasn't necessary to be ~all-the-time~ in the state he had attained. But that's his choice, everything he is stands on that choice. We are all responsible for our own journey. All this is in a nutshell my problem with ND, to seem rather than to be. Of course, just my view, means nothing. I agree in that I believe that ('apparent') individual consciousness expands (has the capacity to perceive/experience more of all that is). And I have no problem with the distinction between small self and true self, I think it's a useful one, and I get what you mean by 'that's the only time I truly exist'. But I don't feel the 'line' between small self and true self is quite as distinct, or hard, as I'm getting the impression you take it to be....to put that another way, I'm not sure it's an either/or situation. I see 'small self' as more like a...filtered or egocentric version, or expression, of 'true self'. There's a level at which it's all still 'the individual' (and beyond that, all still 'Self') But, I sense you enjoy the challenge of transcending that line, and you enjoy the process of spiritual growth, perhaps even the sense of moving backwards and forwards between small and true self, so please don't take what I said as a criticism, we all have our own unique paths. I see myself as 'growing' too, and I believe there are many valid shades of spirituality. (To be clear 'apparent' is my concession to non-duality, which in my own way, I am aligned to). Se laughter's post above, it's pretty close to accurate...combined with your post.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2021 8:19:12 GMT -5
zd would affirm this as correct. Also correct, he claims no personal responsibility for his actions. For my post to be correct it needs to add separate volitional to person. ...But it still sounds pretty personal. Do you believe you have some control over how you behave in any given moment? To give the example Sam Harris often uses, name a movie. Take as long as you like, and then pick one. Now perhaps there's a movie that didn't come to mind but is relatively well known. Let's say the Wizard of Oz. You are not free to choose what does not occur to you to choose. And what does occur to you (i.e what movies pop up in your mind) is completely out of your control. The final thought of "okay, I'll go with (insert movie here)" is similarly out of your control, and thus there really isn't any truth to the notion of personal responsibility, though there might be merit in the concept of it for sake of social cohesion and the like. That's a very good analogy, very accurate. No, at this stage sdp can do nothing. Even writing this post is merely happening. But there is one thing I can do, and is the only thing I can do, I can either watch the film, or not. If I don't watch the film I disappear into the film, get lost in the film, forget I'm sitting in a chair in a room, all of my attention going-in-to the film. This disappearing into the film is what Gurdjieff called sleep. IOW, from my POV, if you're not watching, you're asleep. It doesn't matter if one once was awake, if you're not watching now, you're asleep.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Sept 21, 2021 8:33:19 GMT -5
Do you believe you have some control over how you behave in any given moment? To give the example Sam Harris often uses, name a movie. Take as long as you like, and then pick one. Now perhaps there's a movie that didn't come to mind but is relatively well known. Let's say the Wizard of Oz. You are not free to choose what does not occur to you to choose. And what does occur to you (i.e what movies pop up in your mind) is completely out of your control. The final thought of "okay, I'll go with (insert movie here)" is similarly out of your control, and thus there really isn't any truth to the notion of personal responsibility, though there might be merit in the concept of it for sake of social cohesion and the like. That's a very good analogy, very accurate. No, at this stage sdp can do nothing. Even writing this post is merely happening. But there is one thing I can do, and is the only thing I can do, I can either watch the film, or not. If I don't watch the film I disappear into the film, get lost in the film, forget I'm sitting in a chair in a room, all of my attention going-in-to the film. This disappearing into the film is what Gurdjieff called sleep. IOW, from my POV, if you're not watching, you're asleep. It doesn't matter if one once was awake, if you're not watching now, you're asleep. Yeah, I like the analogy for its brevity and simplicity at explaining that point. Regarding watching the film or not, is there some control here over which one you do, or is this more of the same - simply happening like everything else?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2021 8:56:08 GMT -5
That's a very good analogy, very accurate. No, at this stage sdp can do nothing. Even writing this post is merely happening. But there is one thing I can do, and is the only thing I can do, I can either watch the film, or not. If I don't watch the film I disappear into the film, get lost in the film, forget I'm sitting in a chair in a room, all of my attention going-in-to the film. This disappearing into the film is what Gurdjieff called sleep. IOW, from my POV, if you're not watching, you're asleep. It doesn't matter if one once was awake, if you're not watching now, you're asleep. Yeah, I like the analogy for its brevity and simplicity at explaining that point. Regarding watching the film or not, is there some control here over which one you do, or is this more of the same - simply happening like everything else? There is control, that's the whole point. But here is where ND (conceptual ND) and "my" POV part ways. In order to observe, one has to become two, that which observes and that which is observed (essence and the small s self). This is the beginning of everything. So you see, discussion gets difficult at this point... If one doesn't choose to watch the film, you will automatically invariably get sucked into believing the film is real. Seeing there is a choice is not easy to come to.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 21, 2021 9:00:31 GMT -5
This seems pretty personal for someone who claims not to be a person. Does ZD actually claim to not be a person? Correct me if I'm wrong but this seems like a straw man. Surely he would say that THIS manifests as people, trees, animals, and all of the other 10,000 things, but it's the only actor on stage. The distinction is that there is no doer other than that which is doing everything. I resonate with all of that but I can still call myself a person. I just know that none of this is my doing and nothing ever could be "my" doing because it all happens effortlessly, even moments of confusion. Exactly.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Sept 21, 2021 9:00:41 GMT -5
Yeah, I like the analogy for its brevity and simplicity at explaining that point. Regarding watching the film or not, is there some control here over which one you do, or is this more of the same - simply happening like everything else? There is control, that's the whole point. But here is where ND (conceptual ND) and "my" POV part ways. In order to observe, one has to become two, that which observes and that which is observed (essence and the small s self). This is the beginning of everything. So you see, discussion gets difficult at this point... Okay, thank you for explaining! This is where we part ways, then. I think the faculty of awareness or attention has a big role to play (if not the role) in a lot of what gets described as awakening, but as I see it any intention to control ones attention arises spontaneously out of nowhere, and thus the whole phenomenological experience plays out without any controller or doer.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 21, 2021 9:03:26 GMT -5
Does ZD actually claim to not be a person? Correct me if I'm wrong but this seems like a straw man. Surely he would say that THIS manifests as people, trees, animals, and all of the other 10,000 things, but it's the only actor on stage. The distinction is that there is no doer other than that which is doing everything. I resonate with all of that but I can still call myself a person. I just know that none of this is my doing and nothing ever could be "my" doing because it all happens effortlessly, even moments of confusion. zd would affirm this as correct. Also correct, he claims no personal responsibility for his actions. For my post to be correct it needs to add separate volitional to person. ...But it still sounds pretty personal. That is a TOTAL misunderstanding of what's being pointed to. I have never claimed no personal responsibility for whatever the body does. In fact, the truth is just the opposite of that.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 21, 2021 9:06:20 GMT -5
That's a very good analogy, very accurate. No, at this stage sdp can do nothing. Even writing this post is merely happening. But there is one thing I can do, and is the only thing I can do, I can either watch the film, or not. If I don't watch the film I disappear into the film, get lost in the film, forget I'm sitting in a chair in a room, all of my attention going-in-to the film. This disappearing into the film is what Gurdjieff called sleep. IOW, from my POV, if you're not watching, you're asleep. It doesn't matter if one once was awake, if you're not watching now, you're asleep. Yeah, I like the analogy for its brevity and simplicity at explaining that point. Regarding watching the film or not, is there some control here over which one you do, or is this more of the same - simply happening like everything else? Yes, it is simply happening, like everything else that is happening.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2021 9:07:14 GMT -5
Yeah, I like the analogy for its brevity and simplicity at explaining that point. Regarding watching the film or not, is there some control here over which one you do, or is this more of the same - simply happening like everything else? There is control, that's the whole point. But here is where ND (conceptual ND) and "my" POV part ways. In order to observe, one has to become two, that which observes and that which is observed (essence and the small s self). This is the beginning of everything. So you see, discussion gets difficult at this point... My experience is that sometimes there seems to be some level of control, and sometimes there doesn't seem to be any. I'm generally happier when it seems like there is some control, but the 'no control' phase is fine too. There's usually an adjustment as I enter a 'no control' phase, which can be a little bumpy as my conditioning adjusts. For example, I trade forex online sometimes, and when the 'no control' phase comes, it becomes impossible. In this phase, there is a lot of 'quiet observation' happening, but I can't say that I am controlling it. It's just happening. This phase can last a couple of days or longer, and I would describe it as like being in a 'void'. Any attempt to control is futile. And then the sense of 'some level of control' returns and I can function a bit more like a normal human being!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2021 9:08:07 GMT -5
zd would affirm this as correct. Also correct, he claims no personal responsibility for his actions. For my post to be correct it needs to add separate volitional to person. ...But it still sounds pretty personal. That is a TOTAL misunderstanding of what's being pointed to. I have never claimed no personal responsibility for whatever the body does. In fact, the truth is just the opposite of that. OK, then we are not as far apart as I thought we were. Then I can't connect no SVP with personal responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2021 9:11:22 GMT -5
There is control, that's the whole point. But here is where ND (conceptual ND) and "my" POV part ways. In order to observe, one has to become two, that which observes and that which is observed (essence and the small s self). This is the beginning of everything. So you see, discussion gets difficult at this point... My experience is that sometimes there seems to be some level of control, and sometimes there doesn't seem to be any. I'm generally happier when it seems like there is some control, but the 'no control' phase is fine too. There's usually an adjustment as I enter a 'no control' phase, which can be a little bumpy as my conditioning adjusts. For example, I trade forex online sometimes, and when the 'no control' phase comes, it becomes impossible. In this phase, there is a lot of 'quiet observation' happening, but I can't say that I am controlling it. It's just happening. This phase can last a couple of days or longer, and I would describe it as like being in a 'void'. Any attempt to control is futile. And then the sense of 'some level of control' returns and I can function a bit more like a normal human being! Just to be clear, there is never any control of thinking, feeling or doing. The control is whether to observe thinking, feeling, doing. But what you say is very significant.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 21, 2021 9:12:07 GMT -5
There is control, that's the whole point. But here is where ND (conceptual ND) and "my" POV part ways. In order to observe, one has to become two, that which observes and that which is observed (essence and the small s self). This is the beginning of everything. So you see, discussion gets difficult at this point... Okay, thank you for explaining! This is where we part ways, then. I think the faculty of awareness or attention has a big role to play (if not the role) in a lot of what gets described as awakening, but as I see it any intention to control ones attention arises spontaneously out of nowhere, and thus the whole phenomenological experience plays out without any controller or doer. Yes. And think how much needless psychological effort is expended in trying to control one's attention. Sure, as long as there is the sense of volitional doership, this efforting will continue and seem justifiable, but after the illusion of the SVP is penetrated, one's past efforting will no longer be seen as efforting. One of the reasons we call SS "the natural state" is that all sense of efforting ceases, and life becomes a kind of flow. Easy. Simple. Uncomplicated. Relaxed.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2021 9:12:28 GMT -5
My experience is that sometimes there seems to be some level of control, and sometimes there doesn't seem to be any. I'm generally happier when it seems like there is some control, but the 'no control' phase is fine too. There's usually an adjustment as I enter a 'no control' phase, which can be a little bumpy as my conditioning adjusts. For example, I trade forex online sometimes, and when the 'no control' phase comes, it becomes impossible. In this phase, there is a lot of 'quiet observation' happening, but I can't say that I am controlling it. It's just happening. This phase can last a couple of days or longer, and I would describe it as like being in a 'void'. Any attempt to control is futile. And then the sense of 'some level of control' returns and I can function a bit more like a normal human being! Ju st to be clear, there is never any control of thinking, feeling or doing. The control is whether to observe thinking, feeling, doing. But what you say is very significant. Yeah I get what you mean here.
|
|