|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 30, 2023 11:33:40 GMT -5
I'm assuming the self-remembering is part of Gurdji's system, so I'd have to take your word for it. I don't know what that specifically refers to, but I assume it's something of a higher order. I treat the self as a mental construct (in lower mind/mind/higher mind), so yeah, I guess there's a potential for a more expanded sense of awareness. The 'sense of Self' I was referring to was a bit more directed toward transcending and/or allowing for an expanded sense of working beyond the repetitive shifting back and forth. Can it be a weird time of trial and error? Oh yeah. Would I go deep into the exploration to do so while working with a 200A box? Nah, but maybe later it just naturally arises. If the default position is mind-as-self, it could be any combination of a) the demands of daily life that pull one into the drama of life, b) the minds attachments to its needs, c) stubbornness in one's ideals and/or idealistic misconceptions, etc. For example, sometimes, when in the flow of discussions here, it almost seems like you are defending the mind-as-self position, rather than taking what is shared and seeing if it might help loosen its grip. Not sure, but perhaps the stance is more about trust of who says what. Your call. As far as the present discussion on 'destruction of mind', I sometimes get the feeling that it is misinterpreted in much the same way as the original meaning of the Greek word for apocalypse. Whether that is due to a translation error, a bit of emphatic push for practitioners of meditation or seekers, or what have you, I don't know. But the gist of the admonition's trajectory I DO get, and is what I refer to as NOTHING/NO THING, not just as a concept. What's revealed in the aftermath is the depth of impermanence/no self. It's not a 'one time' realization per se, but available Here and Now, prior to the mind-as-self's myopic tendencies. So, if one is using the mind-as-self capacity to understand and try to act like (what you've termed as) self-remembering, it sure sounds like a cart-before-the-donkey situation. Consciously start with your self-remembering stance. Emanation (in Plotinus model) refers to (more) consciously using the mind as a tool, being aware of its limited capacities, beliefs, values, etc. Analysis paralysis of the back-and-forth is tendency of the mind, is counter-productive and leaves attention stuck. Most minds want MORE information to get unstuck. Booooo. The mythology of the Phoenix is ancient, predating many civilizations. How the Sun God (Awareness) ignites a fire that burns a nest (mind) thus consuming the attendant bird (self) points to the same conceptual 'destruction'. What arises from the ashes is a distinctly different qualitative phenomenon. . Always. ⚫Then what's the point of using worldly logic on physical parameters as counters to an argument involving psychic or noetic principles? Wrong direction, imo, but maybe I'm missing the intent. Dunno, and it's not my problem. 🟣Then, why is your 'default' at the other end of the present continuum? |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 30, 2023 11:35:26 GMT -5
I'm assuming the self-remembering is part of Gurdji's system, so I'd have to take your word for it. I don't know what that specifically refers to, but I assume it's something of a higher order. I treat the self as a mental construct (in lower mind/mind/higher mind), so yeah, I guess there's a potential for a more expanded sense of awareness. The 'sense of Self' I was referring to was a bit more directed toward transcending and/or allowing for an expanded sense of working beyond the repetitive shifting back and forth. Can it be a weird time of trial and error? Oh yeah. Would I go deep into the exploration to do so while working with a 200A box? Nah, but maybe later it just naturally arises. If the default position is mind-as-self, it could be any combination of a) the demands of daily life that pull one into the drama of life, b) the minds attachments to its needs, c) stubbornness in one's ideals and/or idealistic misconceptions, etc. For example, sometimes, when in the flow of discussions here, it almost seems like you are defending the mind-as-self position, rather than taking what is shared and seeing if it might help loosen its grip. Not sure, but perhaps the stance is more about trust of who says what. Your call. As far as the present discussion on 'destruction of mind', I sometimes get the feeling that it is misinterpreted in much the same way as the original meaning of the Greek word for apocalypse. Whether that is due to a translation error, a bit of emphatic push for practitioners of meditation or seekers, or what have you, I don't know. But the gist of the admonition's trajectory I DO get, and is what I refer to as NOTHING/NO THING, not just as a concept. What's revealed in the aftermath is the depth of impermanence/no self. It's not a 'one time' realization per se, but available Here and Now, prior to the mind-as-self's myopic tendencies. So, if one is using the mind-as-self capacity to understand and try to act like (what you've termed as) self-remembering, it sure sounds like a cart-before-the-donkey situation. Consciously start with your self-remembering stance. Emanation (in Plotinus model) refers to (more) consciously using the mind as a tool, being aware of its limited capacities, beliefs, values, etc. Analysis paralysis of the back-and-forth is tendency of the mind, is counter-productive and leaves attention stuck. Most minds want MORE information to get unstuck. Booooo. The mythology of the Phoenix is ancient, predating many civilizations. How the Sun God (Awareness) ignites a fire that burns a nest (mind) thus consuming the attendant bird (self) points to the same conceptual 'destruction'. What arises from the ashes is a distinctly different qualitative phenomenon. Good to hear this. I've never gotten the sense from anybody else here that SR-TR is like this. Everybody talks about it as a ~past~ one-time realization, done, don't need to ~go-there~ again. Available always here and now is more in my ballpark. Wherever the apparent you goes, there YOU always are/were/and forever shall be. It's called eternity for a reason; the impermanence, not so much. There's a fearless aspect of the realized former. If identified with the latter, fear typically abounds, if not mostly at an unconscious level. Makes for amazing arrays of tragiocomic drama. 🎭 |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 30, 2023 11:39:04 GMT -5
It's not just my ~rule~ here, STs, it's my rule everywhere, I don't write about the how-to of practices, I don't write about experiences. I write from theory, and experience, I don't draw a line dividing them. I don't generally bring anything new up, unless it comes up. So it's not so easy to 'meet me where I am'. I try to answer all questions, within those boundaries. I blur the edges, sometimes. I use metaphor and analogy, sometimes on the spot, sometimes loaded and ready, they help keep me in the boundaries. I don't remember the dilemma of the previous post, I'll look back. I'm nowhere near a master of those domains, I've barely scratched the surface, but I have scratched the surface. I never expect results, I never look for results. Some things are not meant to be explained, Einstein didn't have anyone to explain Relativity to him. Kekule didn't have anyone to explain the structure of benzene to him. His subconscious got-it-first, and showed him in a dream. Einstein was asked about the star-measurements during the 1919 total solar eclipse, if they showed General Relativity was wrong. He answered, Then I will be very sorry for God. IOW, he knew he was correct, for him it was like asking what if 2 + 2 does not equal 4? He had gotten a glimpse under the glass table. The teaching is like putting a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle together, without a picture to go by, face down, on a glass table. Sometimes you get a peek under the table. You don't draw a line between theory and experience, and yet stay within your arbitrarily drawn boundaries, and then wonder why peeps reply to the words on the page that express a dilemma of sorts? Hmm, interesting. Being the master of such domains sounds somewhat like a Psychic/ (maybe) Noetic Reality sort of thing (per the model). But if you're just scratching the surface after so many years of holding Gurdji in such high esteem, it might be worth a deeper look. I'd dare to say, if one punches, claws, and smashes through said surface, a vastness might open up. At that point, we might find a fairly similar view of what ND points to. It's inexplicable. Some people spend half their lives pulling apart the puzzle. Once done, they might spend the next half putting it back together, however mechanically, meaningfully, or artfully. God made this puzzle (and a you), just so the you could do this. Can we agree on that? Meanwhile, a large part of humanity is waiting around for some second coming or making up variations of stories about god wants this and god wants that. Like flies stuck in an open jar, unable to touch the vastness beyond the glass of their own deceit. Scratching the surface blows everything I've read here, or anywhere, about Realizations or ND, out of the water. Sorry, that's just what is.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 30, 2023 11:46:20 GMT -5
Good to hear this. I've never gotten the sense from anybody else here that SR-TR is like this. Everybody talks about it as a ~past~ one-time realization, done, don't need to ~go-there~ again. Available always here and now is more in my ballpark. Wherever the apparent you goes, there YOU always are/were/and forever shall be. It's called eternity for a reason; the impermanence, not so much. There's a fearless aspect of the realized former. If identified with the latter, fear typically abounds, if not mostly at an unconscious level. Makes for amazing arrays of tragiocomic drama. 🎭 . In the story is a link to a video of a graduation speech by David Foster Wallace. The link doesn't work, but I found it elsewhere. I've read the short book, never thought to look up to see if there is an audio. This poor guy is a sad story. He was a genius, had all the brains, but he couldn't escape the box of self. He killed himself. He had the 95 foot rope crossing the 100 foot chasm, but he never found those last five feet. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 30, 2023 11:52:44 GMT -5
You don't draw a line between theory and experience, and yet stay within your arbitrarily drawn boundaries, and then wonder why peeps reply to the words on the page that express a dilemma of sorts? Hmm, interesting. Being the master of such domains sounds somewhat like a Psychic/ (maybe) Noetic Reality sort of thing (per the model). But if you're just scratching the surface after so many years of holding Gurdji in such high esteem, it might be worth a deeper look. I'd dare to say, if one punches, claws, and smashes through said surface, a vastness might open up. At that point, we might find a fairly similar view of what ND points to. It's inexplicable. Some people spend half their lives pulling apart the puzzle. Once done, they might spend the next half putting it back together, however mechanically, meaningfully, or artfully. God made this puzzle (and a you), just so the you could do this. Can we agree on that? Meanwhile, a large part of humanity is waiting around for some second coming or making up variations of stories about god wants this and god wants that. Like flies stuck in an open jar, unable to touch the vastness beyond the glass of their own deceit. Scratching the surface blows everything I've read here, or anywhere, about Realizations or ND, out of the water. Sorry, that's just what is. Yes, tragiocomedy is rife.  Nice. OK, the surface of what then? And how would clearly state the dilemma of some default, tragiocomic mind-as-self identity? |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 30, 2023 11:57:14 GMT -5
Wherever the apparent you goes, there YOU always are/were/and forever shall be. It's called eternity for a reason; the impermanence, not so much. There's a fearless aspect of the realized former. If identified with the latter, fear typically abounds, if not mostly at an unconscious level. Makes for amazing arrays of tragiocomic drama. 🎭 . Roight. So, that's the surface you're playing with.... in the realized vastness of the ocean. Too bad Wallace never figured it out. There must have been a misunderstanding of identity. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 30, 2023 12:11:14 GMT -5
Wherever the apparent you goes, there YOU always are/were/and forever shall be. It's called eternity for a reason; the impermanence, not so much. There's a fearless aspect of the realized former. If identified with the latter, fear typically abounds, if not mostly at an unconscious level. Makes for amazing arrays of tragiocomic drama. 🎭 . In the story is a link to a video of a graduation speech by David Foster Wallace. The link doesn't work, but I found it elsewhere. I've read the short book, never thought to look up to see if there is an audio. This poor guy is a sad story. He was a genius, had all the brains, but he couldn't escape the box of self. He killed himself. He had the 95 foot rope crossing the 100 foot chasm, but he never found those last five feet. Yes, I posted this speech here some years back. It is a very good example of juxtaposing the outcomes of having a 'sense' of the vastness of the ocean (from within the confines of the prison of the fear-ridden mind-as-self) and the actual realization of the vastness. After all, Wallace did go on to kill himself, so maybe the gravity of the ocean's vastness crushed the structure of identity to a breaking point, eh? So, if I'm starting to read you correctly, you're saying that you're the fish who has realized the vastness, and enjoy plumbing its depths. And you see everyone else as not understanding there's MORE to learn about it. Is that estimation about right? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 30, 2023 12:16:52 GMT -5
⚫Then what's the point of using worldly logic on physical parameters as counters to an argument involving psychic or noetic principles? Wrong direction, imo, but maybe I'm missing the intent. Dunno, and it's not my problem. 🟣Then, why is your 'default' at the other end of the present continuum? All we have here is little scribbles on a computer screen, I do the best I can, communicating. There is a very cool book, if one is inclined to Samurai stories. I think it purports to be a Zen parable. It's called The Ronin by William Dale Jennings. It's not for the faint of heart, the way a Jack Reacher novel is not for the faint of heart. A monk is sliced in half by a very bad guy, before he falls he tells the bad guy, again: a year from today. Before the slicing the monk tells him to come to that spot, exactly to the day a year from now. The very bad guy feels compelled to understand how the very calmly sliced monk said what he said, so goes back in a year. He becomes a Zen student, eventually. Eventually, the son of a woman he also sliced, I think it was that same day, it's been many years since I read it, found the Zen student in order to kill him. The son had spent years dedicated to that one task, the Zen student, as a bad guy, had been invincible as a swordsman. Son finally meets Zen student, and the Zen student says I will fight you, when.... I will not spoil the book any further, in case anyone wants to read. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 30, 2023 12:23:32 GMT -5
Yes. In the story is a link to a video of a graduation speech by David Foster Wallace. The link doesn't work, but I found it elsewhere. I've read the short book, never thought to look up to see if there is an audio. This poor guy is a sad story. He was a genius, had all the brains, but he couldn't escape the box of self. He killed himself. He had the 95 foot rope crossing the 100 foot chasm, but he never found those last five feet. Yes, I posted this speech here some years back. It is a very good example of juxtaposing the outcomes of having a 'sense' of the vastness of the ocean (from within the confines of the prison of the fear-ridden mind-as-self) and the actual realization of the vastness. After all, Wallace did go on to kill himself, so maybe the gravity of the ocean's vastness crushed the structure of identity to a breaking point, eh? So, if I'm starting to read you correctly, you're saying that you're the fish who has realized the vastness, and enjoy plumbing its depths. And you see everyone else as not understanding there's MORE to learn about it. Is that estimation about right? I'm saying one of us (plural, for yous) is a (Chuang Tzu) frog in the well. I wouldn't purport to know more, say more. You have given me hope in saying Realization is not once-and-for-all, that it's accessible always, here, now. At least we are on the same playing field. I don't think DFW ever escaped his own mind. I don't think anyone who had glimpsed the Ocean, would kill themselves. One glimpse is OK for a lifetime, and will bring one back. I missed your past linking, I'm pretty sure. I only listened to a couple of minutes, I'll get back to it. I do remember I liked the book. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 30, 2023 12:42:32 GMT -5
Yes, I posted this speech here some years back. It is a very good example of juxtaposing the outcomes of having a 'sense' of the vastness of the ocean (from within the confines of the prison of the fear-ridden mind-as-self) and the actual realization of the vastness. After all, Wallace did go on to kill himself, so maybe the gravity of the ocean's vastness crushed the structure of identity to a breaking point, eh? So, if I'm starting to read you correctly, you're saying that you're the fish who has realized the vastness, and enjoy plumbing its depths. And you see everyone else as not understanding there's MORE to learn about it. Is that estimation about right? I'm saying one of us (plural, for yous) is a (Chuang Tzu) frog in the well. I wouldn't purport to know more, say more. You have given me hope in saying Realization is not once-and-for-all, that it's accessible always, here, now. At least we are on the same playing field. I don't think DFW ever escaped his own mind. I don't think anyone who had glimpsed the Ocean, would kill themselves. One glimpse is OK for a lifetime, and will bring one back. I missed your past linking, I'm pretty sure. I only listened to a couple of minutes, I'll get back to it. I do remember I liked the book. “Without leaving my house, I know the whole universe.” - Lao Tzu “To a MIND that is still, the entire universe surrenders.” - Chuang Tzu "YOU ain't goin' nowhere" - Bob Dylan |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 30, 2023 12:43:45 GMT -5
Scratching the surface blows everything I've read here, or anywhere, about Realizations or ND, out of the water. Sorry, that's just what is. Yes, tragiocomedy is rife. Nice. OK, the surface of what then? And how would clearly state the dilemma of some default, tragiocomic mind-as-self identity? We had to watch that for a Phenomenology class in college, psychology. Go to the theater, individually. Otherwise I'm pretty sure I would never have seen it. Have never watched it again, but it is a good film, worthy of Oscar-winning. A few weeks ago I watched a documentary about the director of the film, and the making of Midnight Cowboy. Interesting guy. I only had one point. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 31, 2023 9:26:49 GMT -5
Yes, tragiocomedy is rife. Nice. OK, the surface of what then? And how would clearly state the dilemma of some default, tragiocomic mind-as-self identity? We had to watch that for a Phenomenology class in college, psychology. Go to the theater, individually. Otherwise I'm pretty sure I would never have seen it. Have never watched it again, but it is a good film, worthy of Oscar-winning. A few weeks ago I watched a documentary about the director of the film, and the making of Midnight Cowboy. Interesting guy. I only had one point. Expectations, values, motives (ulterior or otherwise), etc, and action... all spiced up with varying amounts and degrees of the seven deadly sins. Lovely drama when it's all out front, including the thoughts that arise in re-action to it. Attention is interesting. What was the point? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 31, 2023 9:46:25 GMT -5
We had to watch that for a Phenomenology class in college, psychology. Go to the theater, individually. Otherwise I'm pretty sure I would never have seen it. Have never watched it again, but it is a good film, worthy of Oscar-winning. A few weeks ago I watched a documentary about the director of the film, and the making of Midnight Cowboy. Interesting guy. I only had one point. Expectations, values, motives (ulterior or otherwise), etc, and action... all spiced up with varying amounts and degrees of the seven deadly sins. Lovely drama when it's all out front, including the thoughts that arise in re-action to it. Attention is interesting. What was the point? It's a pretty funny scene, each thought the other was the *customer*. (Not that we're each trying to sell anything).  |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 31, 2023 10:35:07 GMT -5
Expectations, values, motives (ulterior or otherwise), etc, and action... all spiced up with varying amounts and degrees of the seven deadly sins. Lovely drama when it's all out front, including the thoughts that arise in re-action to it. Attention is interesting. What was the point? It's a pretty funny scene, each thought the other was the *customer*. (Not that we're each trying to sell anything). Yes, intention is also an interesting thing. After all, what customer in their 'right mind' would give (up) every thing for NO THING? |
|
Nice.