|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 15, 2022 14:57:51 GMT -5
In a technical sense, the bolded could be considered true because without thoughts about reality, the idea of experience or perception by a separate observer would not arise. However, I doubt that you mean those words in that technical and extremely limited sense. If we imagine someone whose mind Is totally silent going about his/her business, there is no psychological separation of any kind, and that person sees and feels whatever is happening in the same way as anyone else but without the intellectual overlay. S/he is one-with "what is" and there is no reflection about either self or other-than-self. We can say that s/he is experiencing whatever is happening and perceiving whatever is perceived, but the individual with a silent mind would not think that sort of thing because there would be no mind talk. S/he would simply be doing whatever is being done via subconscious mental processing that is below the level of conscious thought. As I've noted before (and has been pointed out explicitly by people like Gary Weber and Ramana), mind talk and imagining is a habit and is not necessary for ordinary everyday functionality. The reason that mind talk is NOT necessary is because adults have already subconsciously internalized millions of consensually conditioned distinctions, and those distinctions are "known" through the body or through what Buddhists sometimes call "Big Mind." From the "outside perspective" of someone looking at a mentally-silent human it might seem as if the silent human must be thinking in terms of "contrast," etc, but from the "inside" perspective of the silent human that idea would be absent and inapplicable. A silent human would simply see "what is" and respond accordingly. No images, ideas, or symbols would be consciously necessary. As far as a definition for the word "distinction" we can use the words of G. Spencer Brown in his book about this subject "Laws of Form." In essence, he says that a distinction is a recognition (imagining) of differing states of value. Specifically, "There can be no distinction without motive, and there can be no motive unless contents are seen to differ in value." And, "A distinction is drawn by arranging (or imagining) a boundary with separate sides so that a point on one side cannot reach the other side without crossing a boundary." I thought of a good question to ask you that might help me to understand your definition. I Understand that in absolute samadhi, there is only absolute 'frozen' awareness. Nothing else. Now I would describe this state as a 'distinction free' state (based on my definition of 'distinction'). Now obviously there is a difference between absolute samadhi and your normal waking experiencing/perceiving state. So in terms of your definition of 'distinction', how would you characterize that difference in state? Would you say that 'distinction' is absent in both states? If so, what would you say IS present in your normal waking experiencing/perceiving state, that is absent on absolute samadhi? So whereas I would use the word 'distinction' to talk about the difference, what word would you use? Good question. NS is definitely distinction free in any sense of the word because in NS there is nothing other than awareness without any thoughts, perceptions, or body consciousness. In the normal waking state distinctions have already been internalized in the subconscious as a result of past conditioning, so it's not necessary to make any new distinctions unless one wants to do that. One can function perfectly well in total mental silence (no mind talk) by simply allowing the body/mind to function freely. If one is driving to work, it is not necessary to think about oneself, the driving, what is seen, or anything else. The world is seen and responded to directly. That activity is free of conscious distinction or any new act of distinction because the body/mind organism already knows what everything is (how everything has already been distinguished by other people) subconsciously. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 15, 2022 15:00:42 GMT -5
It's not nebulous if you look at it in terms of the seer, the seeing and the seen being one vs. the seer, the seeing and the seen being separated. What the intellect essentially does is re-presenting sensory input to your field of awareness. Which will give you an after the fact, second hand experience as opposed to an immediate, first hand direct experience when the intellect doesn't interfere. When the intellect interferes, experience becomes lifeless, dead and a mere data point that you can measure, categorize and store in your memory. It can be recalled again at will and experienced again. When the intellect doesn't interfere, experience becomes alive, vibrant which cannot be measured, categorized or stored somewhere. It can only be experienced here and now. I think the 3 words you used illustrate the difference here....'categorizing' was one of them. Categorizing is a very human thing to do, it requires a strong 'representing' capacity. In really simple terms, humans depend far too much on their categorizing capacity. In certain ways, the intensity of categorizing is getting really ridiculous these days (modern gender ideology springs to mind) Precisely. Gurdjieff said animals ~think~ via what he called mentation by form. Quite independently I am 100% positive, Temple Grandin also understands this language of form, as it is also her language. I'm sure you all at least know of her, she is autistic. She has designed half the slaughter houses in the US as a humane way to kill animals for our food. She could walk through a slaughter house and see it as cattle see it. So she began to design slaughter houses to gentle cattle to their death, make the process easier for them and cheaper for the slaughter house (less personal to manage the cattle). Grandin's first book was called Thinking In Pictures, in it she describes how she thinks, and how people with autism, in general, think. So she is a major figure in two different fields. And so too Gurdjieff tells us he wrote his book Beelzebub's Tales To His Grandson, in the language of form, so as to bypass the intellect. Parables, are BTW, in the language of form. Words used to paint a picture in the mind. But animals don't do words, only pictures. Temple had to learn to live in both worlds, and translate one into the other, and vice versa. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 15, 2022 15:03:52 GMT -5
Ramana and many of us usually go much further than that. Ramana once told a seeker, "There is no ego. Ego (and the sense of being a SVP--my addition) is the fundamental illusion." Many posters claim that ego is a survival mechanism, but this is also false. Without a sense of doership everything will still get done. To verify this one only needs to become silent and watch. yes, the sense of being an SVP is an illusion, I agree. In my way of expressing this, when we depend heavily on that categorizing aspect, it creates a sense of separate objects, including 'ourselves'. That is an illusion. It's false. And yes, ego too can be said to be an illusion, in that it seems that there is an 'individual' attention/awareness (in actuality, or in terms of 'Self', there is no 'individual' attention). So in every moment there is a relationship, or interaction, or 'conversation', happening with your tools, your body, your wife, your car etc. In this sense, if ego is an illusion, it is a persistent illusion, probably only gone in absolute samadhi. So in its purest sense, ego is 'individual' attention/awareness. This can be said to be illusion. Yes. The sense of being a SVP is probably the hardest illusion to dispel because it is fundamental to everything else. I don't remember specifically the order of what happens in early childhood, but I suspect that a young child probably cognizes its mother as a separate thing prior to cognizing itself as a separate thing. As Reefs noted earlier, the two most common definitions of ego are (1) a sense of selfhood and (2) an inflated sense of selfhood. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 15, 2022 15:08:20 GMT -5
I thought of a good question to ask you that might help me to understand your definition. I Understand that in absolute samadhi, there is only absolute 'frozen' awareness. Nothing else. Now I would describe this state as a 'distinction free' state (based on my definition of 'distinction'). Now obviously there is a difference between absolute samadhi and your normal waking experiencing/perceiving state. So in terms of your definition of 'distinction', how would you characterize that difference in state? Would you say that 'distinction' is absent in both states? If so, what would you say IS present in your normal waking experiencing/perceiving state, that is absent on absolute samadhi? So whereas I would use the word 'distinction' to talk about the difference, what word would you use? Good question. NS is definitely distinction free in any sense of the word because in NS there is nothing other than awareness without any thoughts, perceptions, or body consciousness. In the normal waking state distinctions have already been internalized in the subconscious as a result of past conditioning, so it's not necessary to make any new distinctions unless one wants to do that. One can function perfectly well in total mental silence (no mind talk) by simply allowing the body/mind to function freely. If one is driving to work, it is not necessary to think about oneself, the driving, what is seen, or anything else. The world is seen and responded to directly. That activity is free of conscious distinction or any new act of distinction because the body/mind organism already knows what everything is (how everything has already been distinguished by other people) subconsciously. Yes, our subconscious is good like that, it does a lot of work for us. By 'making new distinctions' do you mean 'learning'? I'd say learning is always happening regardless of whether we intend to learn or not. The brain is always doing its thing...absorbing, assimilating, integrating etc without any effort by us at all. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 15, 2022 15:10:32 GMT -5
I get it, but even so, when a dog sees food, it recognizes food! There is a representation happening there. I think the 3 words you used illustrate the difference here....'categorizing' was one of them. Categorizing is a very human thing to do, it requires a strong 'representing' capacity. In really simple terms, humans depend far too much on their categorizing capacity. In certain ways, the intensity of categorizing is getting really ridiculous these days (modern gender ideology springs to mind) Precisely. Gurdjieff said animals have what he called the language of form. Quite independently I am 100% positive, Temple Grandin also understands this language of form, as it is also her language. I'm sure you all at least know of her, she is autistic. She has designed half the slaughter houses in the US as a humane way to kill animals for our food. She could walk through a slaughter house and see it as cattle see it. So she began to design slaughter houses to gentle cattle to their death, make the process easier for them and cheaper for the slaughter house (less personal to manage the cattle). Grandin's first book was called Thinking In Pictures, in it she describes how she thinks, and how people with autism, in general, think. So she is a major figure in two different fields. And so too Gurdjieff tells us he wrote his book Beelzebub's Tales To His Grandson, in the language of form, so as to bypass the intellect. Parables, are BTW, in the language of form. Words used to paint a picture in the mind. But animals don't do words, only pictures. Temple had to learn to live in both worlds, and translate one into the other, and vice versa. I know of her, but know very little about her, this was all new to me, and I like it a lot. She sounds like someone I would find very interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 15, 2022 15:12:51 GMT -5
I can see the connection you are making between the representative aspect and 'ego'. In which case, I would have to logically argue that there is always an ego...even animals have an ego. In this sense, I see our personal stories (and attachment to them) as the problem, rather than ego itself. And again, it's that heavy reliance/dependence on that aspect of mind that creates a 'strong' ego. Ramana and many of us usually go much further than that. Ramana once told a seeker, "There is no ego. Ego (and the sense of being a SVP--my addition) is the fundamental illusion." Many posters claim that ego is a survival mechanism, but this is also false. Without a sense of doership everything will still get done. To verify this one only needs to become silent and watch. No, no, no, adamantly you are wrong here, and you yourself have explained why. To do what you say one has to first have gone through the process of constructing 'pictures' of the world. Now, I agree, once this has been accomplished, ego isn't needed as a survival mechanism. People who have not gone through this process of constructing pictures-of-the-world-in-relation-to-words, are called autistic. For some reason children (who eventually become adults) have not gone through this process, and so they remain *locked inside themselves*. They have not constructed an ~ego~, which is essentially an avatar, and interface with-the-world. I have met people all up and down the autistic spectrum. People with autism can be taught how to interact with the world, but it is a long and difficult process, for many. Two days ago there was a most excellent documentary on autism on PBS, from 2016, In A Different Key. It will most likely repeat. Part of it was about the very first person labeled autistic, who came to live a very happy and successful and independent life. In 2016 he was still alive and in his 90's, Donald T. I think it was even just today that you described this. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 15, 2022 15:17:53 GMT -5
Good question. NS is definitely distinction free in any sense of the word because in NS there is nothing other than awareness without any thoughts, perceptions, or body consciousness. In the normal waking state distinctions have already been internalized in the subconscious as a result of past conditioning, so it's not necessary to make any new distinctions unless one wants to do that. One can function perfectly well in total mental silence (no mind talk) by simply allowing the body/mind to function freely. If one is driving to work, it is not necessary to think about oneself, the driving, what is seen, or anything else. The world is seen and responded to directly. That activity is free of conscious distinction or any new act of distinction because the body/mind organism already knows what everything is (how everything has already been distinguished by other people) subconsciously. Yes, our subconscious is good like that, it does a lot of work for us. By 'making new distinctions' do you mean 'learning'? I'd say learning is always happening regardless of whether we intend to learn or not. The brain is always doing its thing...absorbing, assimilating, integrating etc without any effort by us at all. Yes, either by learning about some distinction that one had never heard of in the past or by making a new distinction. My distinction of a "glurch" as "someone who stops the line from moving forward" was a humorous attempt to show how new distinctions are made and then internalized. It's difficult NOT to think the word "glurch" after hearing about it.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 15, 2022 15:19:19 GMT -5
yes, the sense of being an SVP is an illusion, I agree. In my way of expressing this, when we depend heavily on that categorizing aspect, it creates a sense of separate objects, including 'ourselves'. That is an illusion. It's false. And yes, ego too can be said to be an illusion, in that it seems that there is an 'individual' attention/awareness (in actuality, or in terms of 'Self', there is no 'individual' attention). So in every moment there is a relationship, or interaction, or 'conversation', happening with your tools, your body, your wife, your car etc. In this sense, if ego is an illusion, it is a persistent illusion, probably only gone in absolute samadhi. So in its purest sense, ego is 'individual' attention/awareness. This can be said to be illusion. Yes. The sense of being a SVP is probably the hardest illusion to dispel because it is fundamental to everything else. I don't remember specifically the order of what happens in early childhood, but I suspect that a young child probably cognizes its mother as a separate thing prior to cognizing itself as a separate thing. As Reefs noted earlier, the two most common definitions of ego are (1) a sense of selfhood and (2) an inflated sense of selfhood. Joseph Chilton Pearce has a most excellent book on the whole process, Magical Child. It's a book I would recommend to anyone, especially parents or prospective parents (and grandparents). Pearce basically says all children are born geniuses, and inculturation is a form of dumbing down. It's a quite brilliant book. [Oh, BTW, I got to see him in person once when he did a one day seminar on his upcoming book, Evolution's End. It was in Hickory, NC about 2 hours away, but well worth it, quite fascinating. That was probably the late '80's, possibly early '90's]. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 15, 2022 15:19:34 GMT -5
yes, the sense of being an SVP is an illusion, I agree. In my way of expressing this, when we depend heavily on that categorizing aspect, it creates a sense of separate objects, including 'ourselves'. That is an illusion. It's false. And yes, ego too can be said to be an illusion, in that it seems that there is an 'individual' attention/awareness (in actuality, or in terms of 'Self', there is no 'individual' attention). So in every moment there is a relationship, or interaction, or 'conversation', happening with your tools, your body, your wife, your car etc. In this sense, if ego is an illusion, it is a persistent illusion, probably only gone in absolute samadhi. So in its purest sense, ego is 'individual' attention/awareness. This can be said to be illusion. Yes. The sense of being a SVP is probably the hardest illusion to dispel because it is fundamental to everything else. I don't remember specifically the order of what happens in early childhood, but I suspect that a young child probably cognizes its mother as a separate thing prior to cognizing itself as a separate thing. As Reefs noted earlier, the two most common definitions of ego are (1) a sense of selfhood and (2) an inflated sense of selfhood. Yes, that's my understanding too. My understanding is also that the way we debond in our world can be quite traumatic for babies, and its partly this trauma that triggers an anxiety and self-preservation instinct. As such, the baby begins to learn that it's 'the world' that makes us feel safe and secure, rather than the natural healthy safety/security of 'Self'. Sometimes our 'civilized' methods are more psychologically-emotionally harmful than the natural animal way, though on the flip side, obviously many babies do die in the animal kingdom, so arguably there is balance there i.e perhaps some trauma is worth it, to have 'life'. Have you seen those new artificial wombs? They give me the heebee-jeebies. www.opindia.com/2022/12/ectolife-concept-video-artificial-womb-facility-future/ |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 15, 2022 15:21:25 GMT -5
Yes. The sense of being a SVP is probably the hardest illusion to dispel because it is fundamental to everything else. I don't remember specifically the order of what happens in early childhood, but I suspect that a young child probably cognizes its mother as a separate thing prior to cognizing itself as a separate thing. As Reefs noted earlier, the two most common definitions of ego are (1) a sense of selfhood and (2) an inflated sense of selfhood. Joseph Chilton Pearce has a most excellent book on the whole process, Magical Child. It's a book I would recommend to anyone, especially parents or prospective parents (and grandparents). Pearce basically says all children are born geniuses, and inculturation is a form of dumbing down. It's a quite brilliant book. I like the sound of that too. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 15, 2022 15:27:41 GMT -5
Precisely. Gurdjieff said animals have what he called the language of form. Quite independently I am 100% positive, Temple Grandin also understands this language of form, as it is also her language. I'm sure you all at least know of her, she is autistic. She has designed half the slaughter houses in the US as a humane way to kill animals for our food. She could walk through a slaughter house and see it as cattle see it. So she began to design slaughter houses to gentle cattle to their death, make the process easier for them and cheaper for the slaughter house (less personal to manage the cattle). Grandin's first book was called Thinking In Pictures, in it she describes how she thinks, and how people with autism, in general, think. So she is a major figure in two different fields. And so too Gurdjieff tells us he wrote his book Beelzebub's Tales To His Grandson, in the language of form, so as to bypass the intellect. Parables, are BTW, in the language of form. Words used to paint a picture in the mind. But animals don't do words, only pictures. Temple had to learn to live in both worlds, and translate one into the other, and vice versa. I know of her, but know very little about her, this was all new to me, and I like it a lot. She sounds like someone I would find very interesting. She actually has a new *COVID* book out (written because her normal life of lecturing around the world was disrupted), Visual Thinking. I happened to catch about 3/4 of a question and answer session with her on a C-Span TV program, In Depth. She's a trip! I'm looking for a replay to see it all again. Even in her 70's (I think she is) she can't hide her autism. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Dec 15, 2022 15:27:51 GMT -5
Gopal's mechanism for coping with life's ups and downs, the roller coaster, is akin to my grandmother's, the old adage, "this too shall pass." Different than the Mongol horses eating the crops adage where the very notion of "up" and "down" comes into question. If I'm ruminating about it, I prefer the latter. Interpreting the value or detriment of events is a dubious endeavor. Some Buddhists I've read lately, say suffering (down) is the harbinger of Peace. But I'm avidly opposed to rumination. It's the cause of seesaws and roller coasters. But how does that square with Gopal's assertion that he's the ruler, the master of his universe? He's just a figurehead. In truth, his wife is in charge. 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 15, 2022 15:32:38 GMT -5
I surely disagree with " Don't resist evil". Identify it, its source, and get rid of it! The deeper interpretation is: "Any evils in the world are symptoms of your own inner disorders and are meant to lead you to cure them." I agree with that. But equally, for me, 'don't resist evil', means accepting that it's within me too (it's all within me), rather than rejecting it and trying to split it. There's a balance though, because 'accepting it' doesn't mean giving it attention and 'activating' it! I like Abraham's idea, 'to be selective' Do you believe that ALL that you perceive in the world (as evil) is your creation? Or do you believe there's an 'entangled' relationship between you and an 'other'? For example, do you believe that you entirely create the Joe Biden that you perceive? i.e do you believe that Biden has no beliefs/consciousness of his own, and he is just an expression of an aspect of you? Or do you believe that Biden has his own terrible beliefs, and his own consciousness, and that his consciousness is entangled with your consciousness to some extent? (Let's see if any Dems are triggered ) I believe that I am one of an enormous amount of self-aware non-physical identities in non-physical contact with each other. What I perceive through my physical senses is created for my benefit from that information by my subconscious, in the framework of my beliefs. It picks and chooses from that enormous amount of information only what it fits my needs of experiencing f or the purpose of my evolvement. So, Biden exists as an identity, as everything else, I, you, a flower, a pebble, a cell, an atom, a planet, an universe, ... All are identities, consciousness, to some degree self-conscious at their level of evolvement. What I experience at my conscious mind level when awake is only a distorted subset of that enormous amount of information, from all those who participate in the physical-reality gestalt. My beliefs determine what my subconscious filters from that information. The objectivity of the physical-universe is on par, with that of the dream-universe. So, it is an important nuance when I think in terms of the evil I perceive, and what I can do about it. That evil results from an imbalance in my psychic makeup, ultimately caused by my level of evolvement. My abilities to create and handle reality depend also of the influences that I allow consciously and unconsciously through those non-physical communications with everything. The reality that I crate and experience is more or less in tune with the reality that other participants create, not all. So, I join a version of reality that I am in "alignment" with. When I change my beliefs, on one hand I'm looking for others that match my new beliefs, while I downgrade my level of attention toward those that I start to diverge from. Simultaneously, new identities that notice my "vibration" becoming in tune with theirs start including me in their version of reality, while those I'm diverging from stop including me in their reality, and in the former gestalt my place is taken sooner or later by another identity closer to their "vibration" than I became. All of this is at consciousness level. Everything is consciousness that forms gestalts, whose elements are in permanent action. The joining and leaving by its elements are transparent to the gestalt, and to its elements. The gestalt influences its elements, and i ts elements influence the gestalt, but there is free will that each can exercise. When there is a disagreement in perceptions, those involved part ways, joining others whom they are more in agreement with. This happens at the consciousness level, and it is perceived differently by all those involved. For comparison, in the physical-reality the permanent renewal of the cells of the body is transparent to the body, to its integrity and identity. To get rid of something that you interpret as evil, and that generates negative emotions in you, you have to firstly identify your belief that made you part of the gestalt in which that evil happens. To do that, you have to not immediately try to banish that negative emotion, but to consciously trace it back to its source belief. Then, changing that belief will cause your identity to leave the "evil" gestalt, and join another, more in tune with your new set of beliefs. Getting upset with an evil, as well as i gnoring it, will keep you in that evil's gestalt, with more and more evil experiences. You can't change the gestalt itself, but you can move to a better gestalt, by changing your beliefs and expectations. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 15, 2022 15:40:18 GMT -5
But how does that square with Gopal's assertion that he's the ruler, the master of his universe? He's just a figurehead. In truth, his wife is in charge. 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 15, 2022 15:47:04 GMT -5
I agree with that. But equally, for me, 'don't resist evil', means accepting that it's within me too (it's all within me), rather than rejecting it and trying to split it. There's a balance though, because 'accepting it' doesn't mean giving it attention and 'activating' it! I like Abraham's idea, 'to be selective' Do you believe that ALL that you perceive in the world (as evil) is your creation? Or do you believe there's an 'entangled' relationship between you and an 'other'? For example, do you believe that you entirely create the Joe Biden that you perceive? i.e do you believe that Biden has no beliefs/consciousness of his own, and he is just an expression of an aspect of you? Or do you believe that Biden has his own terrible beliefs, and his own consciousness, and that his consciousness is entangled with your consciousness to some extent? (Let's see if any Dems are triggered ) I believe that I am one of an enormous amount of self-aware non-physical identities in non-physical contact with each other. What I perceive through my physical senses is created for my benefit from that information by my subconscious, in the framework of my beliefs. It picks and chooses from that enormous amount of information only what it fits my needs of experiencing f or the purpose of my evolvement. So, Biden exists as an identity, as everything else, I, you, a flower, a pebble, a cell, an atom, a planet, an universe, ... All are identities, consciousness, to some degree self-conscious at their level of evolvement. What I experience at my conscious mind level when awake is only a distorted subset of that enormous amount of information, from all those who participate in the physical-reality gestalt. My beliefs determine what my subconscious filters from that information. The objectivity of the physical-universe is on par, with that of the dream-universe. So, it is an important nuance when I think in terms of the evil I perceive, and what I can do about it. That evil results from an imbalance in my psychic makeup, ultimately caused by my level of evolvement. My abilities to create and handle reality depend also of the influences that I allow consciously and unconsciously through those non-physical communications with everything. The reality that I crate and experience is more or less in tune with the reality that other participants create, not all. So, I join a version of reality that I am in "alignment" with. When I change my beliefs, on one hand I'm looking for others that match my new beliefs, while I downgrade my level of attention toward those that I start to diverge from. Simultaneously, new identities that notice my "vibration" becoming in tune with theirs start including me in their version of reality, while those I'm diverging from stop including me in their reality, and in the former gestalt my place is taken sooner or later by another identity closer to their "vibration" than I became. All of this is at consciousness level. Everything is consciousness that forms gestalts, whose elements are in permanent action. The joining and leaving by its elements are transparent to the gestalt, and to its elements. The gestalt influences its elements, and i ts elements influence the gestalt, but there is free will that each can exercise. When there is a disagreement in perceptions, those involved part ways, joining others whom they are more in agreement with. This happens at the consciousness level, and it is perceived differently by all those involved. For comparison, in the physical-reality the permanent renewal of the cells of the body is transparent to the body, to its integrity and identity. To get rid of something that you interpret as evil, and that generates negative emotions in you, you have to firstly identify your belief that made you part of the gestalt in which that evil happens. To do that, you have to not immediately try to banish that negative emotion, but to consciously trace it back to its source belief. Then, changing that belief will cause your identity to leave the "evil" gestalt, and join another, more in tune with your new set of beliefs. Getting upset with an evil, as well as i gnoring it, will keep you in that evil's gestalt, with more and more evil experiences. You can't change the gestalt itself, but you can move to a better gestalt, by changing your beliefs and expectations. Thanks. I read it all (some of it twice) I got a general understanding. In terms of the question I asked (and the words I used), I interpret your answer as 'there is an entanglement, but ultimately it's up to you to be fully self-responsible for your beliefs'. Is that an adequate 16 word summary-interpretation? (If not, please summarize better if you want to). |
|
