|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 24, 2023 12:11:05 GMT -5
 No. [  ]  It's complicated. I really should stop here, [before there>] but only the Whole, is Whole. Macrocosm & Microcosm OP: Nov 10, 2015 at 7:26pm It seems that only a few here (ST's) get that there is significant differentiation in Wholeness, that I can be [am] a non-dualist, but only with qualification, that there are significant 'reasons' for ~separation~. I'll try to give some quotes as further explanation. Glimpses of Truth, excerpts: ...I will refer to the formula you know from the Emerald Tablets: 'As above, so below'. It is easy to start to build the foundation of our discussion from this. ...Truth speaks for itself in whatever form it is manifested. You will understand this fully only in the course of time, but I wish to give to you today at least a grain of understanding. ...I begin with the formula because I am speaking to you. I know you have tried to decipher this formula. I know that you 'understand' it. But the understanding you have now is only a dim and distant reflection of the divine brilliance. ...we will only take it as a starting point for our discussion. And to give you an idea of our subject, I may say that I wish to speak about the overall unity of all that exists--about unity in multiplicity. ... I know you understand about the unity of the laws governing the universe, but this understanding is speculative--or rather is theoretical. It is not enough to understand with the mind, it is necessary to feel with your being the absolute truth and immutability of this fact; only then you will be able, consciously and with conviction, to say 'I know'. ....We started with man, and where is he? But great, and all-embracing is the law of unity. Everything in the universe is one, the difference is only one of scale; in the infinity small we shall find the same laws as in the infinitely great. As above, so below. ... Again I repeat, all in the world is one; and since reason is also one, human reason forms a powerful instrument for investigation. ... You see, Mr. Gurdjieff went on... |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 28, 2023 8:05:48 GMT -5
I really should stop here, [before there>] but only the Whole, is Whole. Macrocosm & Microcosm OP: Nov 10, 2015 at 7:26pm It seems that only a few here (ST's) get that there is significant differentiation in Wholeness, that I can be [am] a non-dualist, but only with qualification, that there are significant 'reasons' for ~separation~. I'll try to give some quotes as further explanation. Glimpses of Truth, excerpts: ...I will refer to the formula you know from the Emerald Tablets: 'As above, so below'. It is easy to start to build the foundation of our discussion from this. ...Truth speaks for itself in whatever form it is manifested. You will understand this fully only in the course of time, but I wish to give to you today at least a grain of understanding. ...I begin with the formula because I am speaking to you. I know you have tried to decipher this formula. I know that you 'understand' it. But the understanding you have now is only a dim and distant reflection of the divine brilliance. ...we will only take it as a starting point for our discussion. And to give you an idea of our subject, I may say that I wish to speak about the overall unity of all that exists--about unity in multiplicity. ... I know you understand about the unity of the laws governing the universe, but this understanding is speculative--or rather is theoretical. It is not enough to understand with the mind, it is necessary to feel with your being the absolute truth and immutability of this fact; only then you will be able, consciously and with conviction, to say 'I know'. ....We started with man, and where is he? But great, and all-embracing is the law of unity. Everything in the universe is one, the difference is only one of scale; in the infinity small we shall find the same laws as in the infinitely great. As above, so below. ... Again I repeat, all in the world is one; and since reason is also one, human reason forms a powerful instrument for investigation. ... You see, Mr. Gurdjieff went on... As you may/not realize, 'things' are all about having a frame of reference for which we have thoughts and labels for.... and perhaps can be understood conceptually. What is ' thi ngle ss' in its simplicity, is not held within memory, but is immediately available. I can SEE where complexity and complications arise.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 28, 2023 9:01:03 GMT -5
I really should stop here, [before there>] but only the Whole, is Whole. Macrocosm & Microcosm OP: Nov 10, 2015 at 7:26pm It seems that only a few here (ST's) get that there is significant differentiation in Wholeness, that I can be [am] a non-dualist, but only with qualification, that there are significant 'reasons' for ~separation~. I'll try to give some quotes as further explanation. Glimpses of Truth, excerpts: ...I will refer to the formula you know from the Emerald Tablets: 'As above, so below'. It is easy to start to build the foundation of our discussion from this. ...Truth speaks for itself in whatever form it is manifested. You will understand this fully only in the course of time, but I wish to give to you today at least a grain of understanding. ...I begin with the formula because I am speaking to you. I know you have tried to decipher this formula. I know that you 'understand' it. But the understanding you have now is only a dim and distant reflection of the divine brilliance. ...we will only take it as a starting point for our discussion. And to give you an idea of our subject, I may say that I wish to speak about the overall unity of all that exists--about unity in multiplicity. ... I know you understand about the unity of the laws governing the universe, but this understanding is speculative--or rather is theoretical. It is not enough to understand with the mind, it is necessary to feel with your being the absolute truth and immutability of this fact; only then you will be able, consciously and with conviction, to say 'I know'. ....We started with man, and where is he? But great, and all-embracing is the law of unity. Everything in the universe is one, the difference is only one of scale; in the infinity small we shall find the same laws as in the infinitely great. As above, so below. ... Again I repeat, all in the world is one; and since reason is also one, human reason forms a powerful instrument for investigation. ... You see, Mr. Gurdjieff went on... As you may/not realize, 'things' are all about having a frame of reference for which we have thoughts and labels for.... and perhaps can be understood conceptually. What is ' thi ngle ss' in its simplicity, is not held within memory, but is immediately available. I can SEE where complexity and complications arise. But there is a flow, movement, exchange of energy, [even] without the description. Man exists in about the last second of time, compared to All That Is. So flow and movement and exchanges of energy occurred before man existed in the universe. This is where I go ~round and round~ with ZD, used to. ~What we [think we] know~ is like a snapshot of a ~photo finish~ of a race (it took the whole race to get to that one moment). This is what a quantum measurement is. It's not a 'picture of reality', it's an artificial construct, a picture *~ out of~* reality. The [All That Is] flow `~already has~ an order and sequence before any description. Yes? No? But no, we can never capture the flow in any picture or motion picture or words. (Tao Te Ching chapter one) That's why quantum physics is so confusing, it doesn't yield to description. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 28, 2023 9:10:38 GMT -5
As you may/not realize, 'things' are all about having a frame of reference for which we have thoughts and labels for.... and perhaps can be understood conceptually. What is ' thi ngle ss' in its simplicity, is not held within memory, but is immediately available. I can SEE where complexity and complications arise. But there is a flow, movement, exchange of energy, [even] without the description. Man exists in about the last second of time, compared to All That Is. So flow and movement and exchanges of energy occurred before man existed in the universe. This is where I go ~round and round~ with ZD, used to. ~What we [think we] know~ is like a snapshot of a ~photo finish~ of a race (it took the whole race to get to that one moment). This is what a quantum measurement is. It's not a 'picture of reality', it's an artificial construct, a picture *~ out of~* reality. The [All That Is] flow `~already has~ an order and sequence before any description. Yes? No? But no, we can never capture the flow in any picture or motion picture or words. That's why quantum physics is so confusing, it doesn't yield to description. Is your mind trying to make sense of the Source of the fruit, dissect the fruit, or enjoy the fruit? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 28, 2023 18:28:57 GMT -5
But there is a flow, movement, exchange of energy, [even] without the description. Man exists in about the last second of time, compared to All That Is. So flow and movement and exchanges of energy occurred before man existed in the universe. This is where I go ~round and round~ with ZD, used to. ~What we [think we] know~ is like a snapshot of a ~photo finish~ of a race (it took the whole race to get to that one moment). This is what a quantum measurement is. It's not a 'picture of reality', it's an artificial construct, a picture *~ out of~* reality. The [All That Is] flow `~already has~ an order and sequence before any description. Yes? No? But no, we can never capture the flow in any picture or motion picture or words. That's why quantum physics is so confusing, it doesn't yield to description. Is your mind trying to make sense of the Source of the fruit, dissect the fruit, or enjoy the fruit? Mind wants to cease being what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 28, 2023 21:05:54 GMT -5
Is your mind trying to make sense of the Source of the fruit, dissect the fruit, or enjoy the fruit? Mind wants to cease being what it is. No, that's not what it wants. It's unnatural. Plus, you've enjoyed using it, but just haven't realized you are unconsciously using it. Step UP. You ever look at a tool, like a favorite set of pliers, and personalize it? You might frantically be looking for them while on the job and say, 'Ah, there you are." And in the mind, it's almost soothing that you are putting them to work (maybe a story-like drama is playing out in your mind that they like it). With higher mind/soul-like stance (per Plotinus model), it is similar. It's that the higher aspects of/within Self direct the flow of attention and (relative/potential) foreseeable outcomes in lower ones. It's part of the emanating flow. But one's attention goes (unconsciously) to the tool, and doesn't 'return' to its seat 'above'. The intellect of the personal-self mind is always the last one to get the messages, but it's where the more limited aspects of identity are gathered in memory and often get stuck. This is as dual as I can get without flat out bullshitting you. Your description of your grandfather led me to think you sensed he probably had some insight on this. As a selfless hope of love for you, he would likely have wanted you to realize the best of it. I get a sense of my dad's intentions all the time, and it is a good force to be in connection with for several reasons. It's not a contest of right/wrong or better/best, but one of a journey into the arms of a freedom FROM the mind SO you can use it clearly in its functional capacity.... for things in this world. It's not made for non-conceptual 'realizations', though it can be very useful for organizing the conceptualizations. That is, the mind needs to be informed... but it doesn't 'know' by what. Step UP. You're fluent in ALL of the ideas of an ancient schema. You've presented the schema clearly and populated it with amazing amounts of knowledgeable ideas and insights that you've devoted yourself to. You probably don't even realize how deep you're into it (mind is the last to get the message). The levies are saturated, the dam is already overflowing. Sincerely, with your deepest sense of Self, ask/pray....listen/notice/mediate. All you need is waiting. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 29, 2023 8:46:57 GMT -5
Mind wants to cease being what it is. No, that's not what it wants. It's unnatural. Plus, you've enjoyed using it, but just haven't realized you are unconsciously using it. Step UP. You ever look at a tool, like a favorite set of pliers, and personalize it? You might frantically be looking for them while on the job and say, 'Ah, there you are." And in the mind, it's almost soothing that you are putting them to work (maybe a story-like drama is playing out in your mind that they like it). With higher mind/soul-like stance (per Plotinus model), it is similar. It's that the higher aspects of/within Self direct the flow of attention and (relative/potential) foreseeable outcomes in lower ones. It's part of the emanating flow. But one's attention goes (unconsciously) to the tool, and doesn't 'return' to its seat 'above'. The intellect of the personal-self mind is always the last one to get the messages, but it's where the more limited aspects of identity are gathered in memory and often get stuck. This is as dual as I can get without flat out bullshitting you. Your description of your grandfather led me to think you sensed he probably had some insight on this. As a selfless hope of love for you, he would likely have wanted you to realize the best of it. I get a sense of my dad's intentions all the time, and it is a good force to be in connection with for several reasons. It's not a contest of right/wrong or better/best, but one of a journey into the arms of a freedom FROM the mind SO you can use it clearly in its functional capacity.... for things in this world. It's not made for non-conceptual 'realizations', though it can be very useful for organizing the conceptualizations. That is, the mind needs to be informed... but it doesn't 'know' by what. Step UP. You're fluent in ALL of the ideas of an ancient schema. You've presented the schema clearly and populated it with amazing amounts of knowledgeable ideas and insights that you've devoted yourself to. You probably don't even realize how deep you're into it (mind is the last to get the message). The levies are saturated, the dam is already overflowing. Sincerely, with your deepest sense of Self, ask/pray....listen/notice/mediate. All you need is waiting. You've pretty well described self-remembering. But it's not a one-time-realization. And I didn't mean mind as a tool, I meant mind-as-self. For sdp it's an ongoing shift, back and forth, mind-as-self to self-remembering. The default position is mind-as-self. Mind wants to cease being what it is means sdp no longer wants mind-(as self) the be the default. Adding for satch, sdp would like nothing more than for mind to be destroyed. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 29, 2023 18:32:50 GMT -5
No, that's not what it wants. It's unnatural. Plus, you've enjoyed using it, but just haven't realized you are unconsciously using it. Step UP. You ever look at a tool, like a favorite set of pliers, and personalize it? You might frantically be looking for them while on the job and say, 'Ah, there you are." And in the mind, it's almost soothing that you are putting them to work (maybe a story-like drama is playing out in your mind that they like it). With higher mind/soul-like stance (per Plotinus model), it is similar. It's that the higher aspects of/within Self direct the flow of attention and (relative/potential) foreseeable outcomes in lower ones. It's part of the emanating flow. But one's attention goes (unconsciously) to the tool, and doesn't 'return' to its seat 'above'. The intellect of the personal-self mind is always the last one to get the messages, but it's where the more limited aspects of identity are gathered in memory and often get stuck. This is as dual as I can get without flat out bullshitting you. Your description of your grandfather led me to think you sensed he probably had some insight on this. As a selfless hope of love for you, he would likely have wanted you to realize the best of it. I get a sense of my dad's intentions all the time, and it is a good force to be in connection with for several reasons. It's not a contest of right/wrong or better/best, but one of a journey into the arms of a freedom FROM the mind SO you can use it clearly in its functional capacity.... for things in this world. It's not made for non-conceptual 'realizations', though it can be very useful for organizing the conceptualizations. That is, the mind needs to be informed... but it doesn't 'know' by what. Step UP. You're fluent in ALL of the ideas of an ancient schema. You've presented the schema clearly and populated it with amazing amounts of knowledgeable ideas and insights that you've devoted yourself to. You probably don't even realize how deep you're into it (mind is the last to get the message). The levies are saturated, the dam is already overflowing. Sincerely, with your deepest sense of Self, ask/pray....listen/notice/mediate. All you need is waiting. You've pretty well described self-remembering. But it's not a one-time-realization. And I didn't mean mind as a tool, I meant mind-as-self. For sdp it's an ongoing shift, back and forth, mind-as-self to self-remembering. The default position is mind-as-self. Mind wants to cease being what it is means sdp no longer wants mind-(as self) the be the default. Adding for satch, sdp would like nothing more than for mind to be destroyed. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 29, 2023 20:29:32 GMT -5
You've pretty well described self-remembering. But it's not a one-time-realization. And I didn't mean mind as a tool, I meant mind-as-self. For sdp it's an ongoing shift, back and forth, mind-as-self to self-remembering. The default position is mind-as-self. Mind wants to cease being what it is means sdp no longer wants mind-(as self) the be the default. Adding for satch, sdp would like nothing more than for mind to be destroyed. 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. I've know what apocalypse means since I was 18, unveiling. I'm not in a mind set, presently, to try to untangle your post. Except, to be able to say this, means you have understood nothing I have ever written. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 29, 2023 23:24:54 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. I've know what apocalypse means since I was 18, unveiling. I'm not in a mind set, presently, to try to untangle your post. Except, to be able to say this, means you have understood nothing I have ever written. Don't worry about taking the time to disentangle it. I was just attempting to meet you where you said were and address the stated dilemma in the previous post, as well as the evidence of it in your subsequent posts to others. You're a master of the mind-as-self and self-remembering domains. All Good. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 30, 2023 8:32:42 GMT -5
I've know what apocalypse means since I was 18, unveiling. I'm not in a mind set, presently, to try to untangle your post. Except, to be able to say this, means you have understood nothing I have ever written. Don't worry about taking the time to disentangle it. I was just attempting to meet you where you said were and address the stated dilemma in the previous post, as well as the evidence of it in your subsequent posts to others. You're a master of the mind-as-self and self-remembering domains. All Good. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 30, 2023 9:06:38 GMT -5
You've pretty well described self-remembering. But it's not a one-time-realization. And I didn't mean mind as a tool, I meant mind-as-self. For sdp it's an ongoing shift, back and forth, mind-as-self to self-remembering. The default position is mind-as-self. Mind wants to cease being what it is means sdp no longer wants mind-(as self) the be the default. Adding for satch, sdp would like nothing more than for mind to be destroyed. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 30, 2023 9:48:43 GMT -5
Hey, what came to mind just now upon reading this is chief feature. Chief feature is our ultimate blind spot. It's called chief feature because our whole psychology is built around it, we are blind to it because it's negative, it's difficult to see what we're really like, the warts. There are several general categories, think of, generally, the seven deadly sins, greed/avarice, sloth (laziness), gluttony, pride, jealousy/envy, have to look up the rest, wrath, lust. Now, fine tune one of the categories for each individual person. Fine tuned, because there are 7 billion+ chief features on Earth. It is almost impossible to see our own chief feature. Even with years of self-study and self-observation it's difficult to begin to get even a glimpse our chief feature. Think of an anchor for the self, think of a wheel where all of the spokes go back to the center, chief feature. And then when we find our chief feature, that's where our real work is, it's like a black hole that just sucks all our energy. For over the last 30 years, going back to the beginning, I considered mine had to do with either fear or laziness. Then maybe about ten years started to get a glimpse, a direction to look in. I guess you know what a *floater* is? Well, I figured out long ago it's a blood vessel in your own eye. It's hard to look at a floater because when you look at it it jumps away. Seeing chief feature is like that, you try to look at it and it jumps away. But basically your whole life is centered around your chief feature, it's everywhere and in everything. Your wife is more likely to know what your chief feature is than you are, or a close friend, a long friend, a BFF. And when you start to get a real glimpse, it's like s**t, Oh, wow, can't belief that, can't believe I never saw that before. It's like walking into a dark room, and turning a dimmer on low. As time passes, weeks, months, years, you see more and more, and begin to fine tune your chief feature. I pretty-much see my chief feature, now. Nasty, the worst, how could anybody have a worst chief feature? But you must permit me not to share that, what it is. So, you all are full of **i*. You're all deluded if think there is no imaginary self. The imaginary self is very real in and as the connections in the neural structure, tough as an old leather shoe. I say all that with all kindness, and with a dash of pity, and a pinch of humor.  If you truly have no self, then you know what your chief feature used-to-be, that's inevitable. Seeing it, is like this, to yourself, the first, of many: I'm happy to see a bit more intensity and openness in how you feel.  When I first read 'floater', my mind went to thinking about toilets. But, yes, the blind spot is a good example of something that is profound to wake up to. Even the blind spot in one's vision is 'filled in by the mind' in order to make an appearance of a 'whole' field of vision. An interesting thing to contemplate in the search. My massive wake up to which you are referring (and perhaps assuming hasn't happened to 'others' here) happened in about 1992, and it was a brutal wake up call, even though there had been some existential shifts prior to it. The breakdown was gloriously intense. So, yes, I am conscious of my features, and my wife of 23 glorious years gives me the wink on occasion. She also tells me she enjoys the sense of space when we are together as one (our Rada-Krishna story unfolds within). On the other hand, some of my loved ones think I'm odd or peculiar, edgy and sometimes an ass, adventurous, intense but laid-back, confusing but content (maybe deluded), uncompromising on some things while completely carefree on others, etc. It goes on, no doubt. All Good. Speaking of potential blind spots, would Gurdji regurgitate something along these lines (see visual, red print is mine) to his flock? If so, would he be pointing to ND? Just something to consider or contemplate. My additions are just something I'm playing with (as explained to Tenka), so they're subject to change.  Looking for something else, just incidentally came back to this. That's what my dad called them, little dark(er) squiggly lines in your sight of vision. They look exterior, if you look at them, they jump away. Studying them, long ago, I figured out they were blood vessels in your own eye. If you look just right (without a focus), you can see individual cells in the blood vessel. Sorry for the mind going the other way.  These are not what I'm talking about (as pictured). This is a very cool video. I've been searching for over 1/2 hour, trying to find a description talked about above, couldn't find satisfactorily. But this seems to be it. Haven't tried his demonstration yet (looking through a pinhole to a white surface, etc. moving the pinhole rapidly), but pretty sure this is it. In the video he describes the structure of the eye. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 30, 2023 9:59:27 GMT -5
You've pretty well described self-remembering. But it's not a one-time-realization. And I didn't mean mind as a tool, I meant mind-as-self. For sdp it's an ongoing shift, back and forth, mind-as-self to self-remembering. The default position is mind-as-self. Mind wants to cease being what it is means sdp no longer wants mind-(as self) the be the default. Adding for satch, sdp would like nothing more than for mind to be destroyed. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 30, 2023 11:26:55 GMT -5
Don't worry about taking the time to disentangle it. I was just attempting to meet you where you said were and address the stated dilemma in the previous post, as well as the evidence of it in your subsequent posts to others. You're a master of the mind-as-self and self-remembering domains. All Good. 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. |
|
If you truly have no self, then you know what your chief feature used-to-be, that's inevitable. 
