|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 21, 2023 11:58:43 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with that. It's said that the Buddha referred to himself as the tathagata for similar reasons. I was using 'personing' in a similar sense to the individuated mind-body expression. No doubt that sort of 'autonomic' response is quite prevalent and likely accounts for the bulk of experientiality. However, just because choices are routinely being made on a subconscious level doesn't negate the fact that choices are being made. I guess we might conclude that differently. Additionally, such choice would be coloured by kamma, which may well encompass what we think of as genetic and biological predisposition, i.e innate behaviour. I consider variations in levels of apparent individuated consciousness to be a factor here too. What I mean is, someone who is generally 'being [more] conscious' than another may respond differently to the same stimuli, even subconsciously.
That said, there are also instances where informed conscious decisions/choices are being made after in depth consideration. And I'm not one who subscribes to this notion that things can only ever unfold one way. In either instance actually.
I rez with that Tao line but perhaps interpret it a bit differently. There is doing even though there is no doer per se. But that isn't to say there is an ultimate doer, such as THIS or the Unborn. . Bingo on two cards. Adding to posts above, if one is acting from conditioning, the connections between neurons, one stays in the feedback loop of the false self. If one is 'being [more] conscious' (being-in {bare} attention and/or {bare} awareness), this is not-living from the self-perpetuating feedback loops of the false self neural connections, this is disengaging the gears of (small s) self-"person". And yes, one most definitely begins to respond differently (thoughts and feelings happen differently), and yes, even subconsciously. Okay, I can sort of see where you're coming from with what I previously called your 'subset conditioning' now. In relation to being conscious. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 12:44:58 GMT -5
Here is the distinction (I've made for 14 years here), what we are born with-as belongs to essence-True Self, this includes the body-brain-neurons. The false self is acquired after birth. This includes thoughts and negative emotions (learned from other people's negative emotions). And these come-from the connections between neurons, that's the distinction. Neurons essence; connections between neurons, the false self.The wisdom of the body as pumping blood and breathing air etc., is essence-connected to Source-Ground-All That Is. "Meditation" is something new, ATA-T is something new. But it's not-new, it's a return to bare-attention, bare-awareness, a return to essence-True Self. In meditation-ATA-T one doesn't go-with the firing of connected-neurons (of which the false self consists). That, begins taking the energy out of what perpetuates the false self. That, is true not-doing. Intellectual shadows are always a form or fragment of machine blueprint. Here you express the perspective that the conditioning expressed by the individual is significant, but here you suggest the opposite. Or, are you saying there that only some patterns of neural connections are the "false self", but not all? I'm not sure what you're saying. essence is your True Self, what you are born with. Anything you can consider, and you have it at birth, that's from essence. The false self is what's acquired after birth. So, you have your neurons at birth, so they belong to essence. (You actually have the most neurons you will ever have, at birth, they get trimmed as you grow. That's ordinary neuroscience). In learning, experience, collecting data, that process is the forming of connections between neurons. That's acquired after birth, so that's defined as the false self (our word is personality). I've never said any differently. Now, after this process of shifting back from living from the false self to living through essence, new connections are formed, new neural connections. This is a different ballpark, I've never written about that before (that is called second education, just to put a name on it. You could say Tolle was going through this second education, while sleeping on park benches and afterwards. JMO [just my opinion]). If all that doesn't address your point, ask differently. |
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 21, 2023 13:06:24 GMT -5
Again, in this convo, definitions/meanings are important.
The term "volition" as used in Nonduality circles has a very specific meaning. Thus, when it's said that SR reveals personal volition to be false/a misconception or an illusion, what's being referenced there is very much the "underlying, actuality of power...ability to determine/act with personal doership," referenced in this Merriam-Webster definition of the term: "Volition: the power of choosing or determining."
The fact that there is no fundamental separation....no inherent, independent existence to the apparent me character/person/body-mind, means there's also no actual "power" to choose/determine.
Truth always addresses what is "actually/fundamentally so." The term "volition" as well as "causation" have built-in reference to actuality/fundamentals.
I've been disagreeing on this for 14 years here. (Explained in the post above). No Person doesn't follow from no Separation. Person doesn't mean independent existence. No Volition (period) doesn't follow from no Separation. It all hinges upon the distinction between what is "actually/fundamentally" so, vs. what is relatively, experientially, apparently so.
|
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 21, 2023 13:07:44 GMT -5
Indeed, a me character/you character/person DOES appear. And choosing freely can be said to be a facet of experience, even in seeing through separation.
However, the very definition of "volition" (the power to make your own decisions) speaks to something deeper than relative, experiential content. It's the same with the word "causaulity/causation/creation." There's an inherent reference to "fundamental/actuality" in the very definition of those terms.
In order to have "actual" volition, there would have to be "actual" separation.
The realization of "One singular, undivided movement," illuminates 'actual' personal volition and causation as ultimately, illusive.
, doesn't follow. One "seamless" movement means that there is no some-thing that has personal agency/volition to "actually" choose in a way that affects/lies causal to that singular, seamless movement. |
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 21, 2023 13:11:06 GMT -5
Apparently, that isn't the case. Correct. If it's True, relative unfolding is contained within a greater, unified, singular, seamless movement, then what does that say about the "actuality/Truth" of the relative unfolding? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 13:16:46 GMT -5
I don't understand "It's the exact opposite". Sitting meditation is basically ~practice~ for attention-awareness in ordinary life, always and everywhere. ANYTHING means anything, it means always and everywhere. So ~my perspective~ is not limited in any way. What Gurdjieff called a conscious man (or woman) means exactly never being lost, never having one's attention or awareness taken by people, places, things, events, thoughts, feelings or bodily actions (which is the normal state for 99.9999% of people, and is what Gurdjieff meant by sleep (the second state of consciousness, ordinary, the so-called waking state, the first state being ordinary sleep-unconsciousness-+ dreams-for about-8-hours), that is, not-awake, IOW, not what is meant here, ST's forum discussion, by awakening from the consensus trance. IOW, it's not a one-time some-nothing, that is WAY down the road). So for Gurdjieff a conscious man lives from {attention}-awareness, without qualification. Up-to becoming a conscious man, conscious efforts are necessary. When conscious efforts are maintained continuously, that's being a conscious man, the definition. (satch and I had a discussion about this. He asked, Why would you want this? That question basically tells me everything). So, then, a field of energy has been built up which ~holds the state~, without effort, the field of energy maintains {attention}-awareness. However, only later is the state ~self-perpetuating~, until then, it takes interior practice to maintain the state, the field of energy, otherwise it will dissipate eventually. [Another practice enters here and can-only enter here. You have to come to this practice, that is, understand it own your own, it will never be given by another person, thus, the secret protects itself. This new practice is the way to move forward, IOW, without it, the journey stops. I say the new practice can only enter here, as for instance you can only build a third story floor if you have built a second story floor. The *first floor* is the body]. This {"new"} field of energy is perceptible, it can't-be ignored, it's monumental, extraordinarily extraordinary. Saying all that to say you are simply wrong, you can't possibly understand my perspective, if you understood it you couldn't say "it is limited to only certain circumstances". BTW, the beginning of the field of energy is faintly perceptible, and then more-so (you have written about it, your experience). Understand, and agree, "it can be dangerous".For many people, if not most, what gets "lost" in flow is the false self, but only temporarily. Flow refers to lucid absorption (in an activity like juggling, for instance), not a daydream. "Lost in a daydream" is a use of "lost" that fits your use of the word "lost" here. But that's not what descriptions of flow are relating. Ever seen a top chef and his knife work? He is in flow. He keeps all of his fingers precisely because his false sense of self, which operates through indirect layers of perception, is "lost". What you write here suggests an obvious form of the existential question : what is it, that maintains conscious efforts continually? You are, of course, completely closed off to the possibility that I have to offer a facet of perspective within your current blind spot. That is, what it is.  This effort to consciously maintain attention, if done in self-reference, eventually all it will do is serve to reinforce the ego. Witnessing is a state with all sorts of subtle layers to it, and one can reach states of witnessing that are quite sublime and profound. But, for as long as there is the witness, and what is witnessed, there is existential delusion.
Resistance is, after all, quite futile. There are some good points here. When I read stuff I can see if it fits into my view or not, and then I can respond, usually back into the language used. (Some things, I just can't relate to). I can't see except from my POV. Today has been a good day, right down my alley. Then what I write goes out, I don't have any control concerning how people read it. (I think I made a comment to figs, I don't know how you'll take this). So what I write is crystal clear to me. I can get into troublesome territory, because of accepted "orthodox" view here is that there is no [individual] self, period. But today there's an opening to say that individuated self is essence, True Self. So I agree when you say that in flow what gets lost is the false self, no question. Any self-reference which concerns thought, is ordinary self-reference to the small s self. But there is what could be called True Self reference, which would be awareness of awareness. This is not in any sense ordinary self-referential thinking. This is what I'm exploring today, this sense of (True) Self. And, so, if one can maintain continuously this green consciousness, one is living from true individuation. Doesn't bother me if you say I have a blind spot here, it's just that Self-referencing-awareness is completely different from self-referencing-thought. (True) Self referencing-awareness does not reinforce ego, it dismantles ego. self-referencing-thinking always perpetuates itself in a feedback loop. And moving on, this is the problem of *practice*. Without (True) Self referencing-awareness (awareness of awareness), practiced a lot, ego remains a problem. Probably Andrew Cohen is a prime example. I could go on... |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 13:17:39 GMT -5
I've been disagreeing on this for 14 years here. (Explained in the post above). No Person doesn't follow from no Separation. Person doesn't mean independent existence. No Volition (period) doesn't follow from no Separation. It all hinges upon the distinction between what is "actually/fundamentally" so, vs. what is relatively, experientially, apparently so.
Precisely. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 13:33:34 GMT -5
I would suggest, when you had a glimpse the 15 years earlier, you had a temporary shift into essence-True Self, but the circuits of the old self became again operational, that is, the connections between neurons that constituted the imaginary self shifted back into operation. I would also suggest that from 15 years of ATA-T, this *practice* slowly began taking the energy out of the self-circuits-neural connections that constituted the imaginary self. And, suddenly the center-tent-pole just collapsed (that's what happened to Tolle in one night), there wasn't even the energy left to hold itself up. I would also suggest that "ZD" then lived wholly from essence-True Self. I have zero problem with your description, the little man in the head was yes, always imaginary, the false self IS imaginary, it's acquired, it's not who-what we are (thus the word false). All this fits perfectly into my POV (what Gurdjieff taught). Today seemed like a good day to say so. Tolle's experience fits perfectly into my POV, sleeping on park benches for 2 years afterwards. Life can be thoroughly disrupted, as, it takes a period of adjustment to begin living from this newness, to know how-to-be, what-to-do. I agree. It didn't dawn on me until a few years ago that following that dramatic shift in 1984 this character lived in exactly the same state of mind that Tolle described. The only difference was that it dissipated after about three days whereas Tolle apparently stayed in that state for two or more years. He claims that 80% or more of his thinking simply stopped and did not return. In my case old incessant thinking patterns returned fairly quickly as a result of wanting to understand what had happened, and the default mode neural network got re-activated as the intellect got cranked back up to full speed. I also agree with the speculation that the thousands of hours of ATA-T had the effect of gradually putting pressure on the default mode neural network until one day it suddenly shifted to a new neural pathway that I often refer to as "a unified perspective neural pathway." None of the dramatic non-local stuff happened following that second shift, but thinking patterns definitely changed. There was an initial period of intermittent fear that selfhood might re-assert itself as a result of reflective thought, but that quickly ended because it was so easy to return to silence and confirm what had been seen. As you correctly noted, there was a gradual deepening process of integration and embodiment that continued to unfold, but fortunately, this character never had to deal with the kind of past psychological traumas that many people describe. Consequently, there didn't seem to be any vasanas that people like Tyler Matthew describe that needed to be released. It was more like, "Oh, now there's freedom because there's no longer a "me" that doesn't feel free and there's no longer a "me" that's at the center of anything that's happening." haha! One of the small ironies of life is that becoming a total loser is a lot of fun!  Very most excellently we're on the same page. I knew we'd get there some day. Thanks. I'd say these new neural pathways are proof man-the-animal-body is not a product of Darwin's evolution (alone). How would you evolve something you will only have (potential) use for in the future. But yes, they obviously exist. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 13:46:41 GMT -5
It's complicated. Correct, no separation (I don't even know what separation would mean). But I think we have to distinguish between the *person* (OTOH) and the conditioning (OToH). We are all conditioned to one extent or another. Plus you can consider samskaras and vasanas baggage we might even be born with. So if a person is acting out from their conditioning, then it's not volitional, it's the conditioning operating. So, for me, nothing works without 3 aspects, [1] the Ground-Source, [2] True Self-true individuality, [3] the false self-persona-mask as conditioning (which I also consider including samskaras-vasanas). If one is acting from conditioning, one is not free, and you can't consider it volitional (it's "knee-jerk compulsive-acting). IOW, correct, no separation. If one is acting from conditioning, no volition. If one is acting from the small s self, this is the false self and can't be called the person, no person. I fully accept with these qualifications no SVP. IOoW, no Separation, period. Volition, acting from True Self- Person begins with the many forms of "meditation", including ATA-T, and only that. The no separation comes through clarity by way of realisation. Somthing along the lines that undifferentiated Awareness is primary and Consciousness is effectively universal. Therefore, Oneness is the case. That sort of thing. I assumed it's pretty much the one thing everyone agrees on.
I see the way you are talking about conditioning as problematic. For a start, the way I use Consciousness- it is synonymous with 'the conditioned', and appearance. The universe, (or universal) is 'the conditioned'. So the sort of conditioning you allude to, social or whatever is merely a subset of that.
Then there is kamma as you have also alluded. But even in the case of one having apprehended the state of the cessation of the production of kamma with life-force remaining ... that life-force and associated experientiality would be residual kamma effect. Therefore, 'conditioned/conditioning'. Mundane experientiality, or the physical realm if you like, is synonymous with 'the conditioned'. Therefore, ultimately you can't distinguish between the person and the conditioning.
No problem with any of that. I'd say it's just a certain framework, a certain map, it's basically an arbitrary line, where do you want to draw the line. It's complicated means it's complicated, people have written thousands of pages trying to make some sense of *what's occurring*. But then the words are mere abstractions. The first paragraph, well put. Aside, nobody else can read this. You probably know about the causal body. It gets really complicated explaining the full picture. No problem with subset. I read a good example of kamma being exhausted the other day. Student asks his Master, how will I know if I'm making progress? You will know when what once made you angry, now makes you laugh. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 13:48:53 GMT -5
I've been disagreeing on this for 14 years here. (Explained in the post above). No Person doesn't follow from no Separation. Person doesn't mean independent existence. No Volition (period) doesn't follow from no Separation. I think maybe 15 years is the charm! Oh, yes, didn't realize, I'm in my 15th year here. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 21, 2023 13:52:49 GMT -5
Intellectual shadows are always a form or fragment of machine blueprint. Here you express the perspective that the conditioning expressed by the individual is significant, but here you suggest the opposite. Or, are you saying there that only some patterns of neural connections are the "false self", but not all? I'm not sure what you're saying. essence is your True Self, what you are born with. Anything you can consider, and you have it at birth, that's from essence. The false self is what's acquired after birth. So, you have your neurons at birth, so they belong to essence. (You actually have the most neurons you will ever have, at birth, they get trimmed as you grow. That's ordinary neuroscience). In learning, experience, collecting data, that process is the forming of connections between neurons. That's acquired after birth, so that's defined as the false self (our word is personality). I've never said any differently. Now, after this process of shifting back from living from the false self to living through essence, new connections are formed, new neural connections. This is a different ballpark, I've never written about that before (that is called second education, just to put a name on it. You could say Tolle was going through this second education, while sleeping on park benches and afterwards. JMO [just my opinion]). If all that doesn't address your point, ask differently. Using this terminology, humans are not born WITH essence; they're born AS essence. Using the same terminology there is only essence (what we are) manifesting however it manifests. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 21, 2023 13:55:16 GMT -5
One "seamless" movement means that there is no some-thing that has personal agency/volition to "actually" choose in a way that affects/lies causal to that singular, seamless movement. Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 13:59:14 GMT -5
Bingo. Bingo on two cards. Adding to posts above, if one is acting from conditioning, the connections between neurons, one stays in the feedback loop of the false self. If one is 'being [more] conscious' (being-in {bare} attention and/or {bare} awareness), this is not-living from the self-perpetuating feedback loops of the false self neural connections, this is disengaging the gears of (small s) self-"person". And yes, one most definitely begins to respond differently (thoughts and feelings happen differently), and yes, even subconsciously. Okay, I can sort of see where you're coming from with what I previously called your 'subset conditioning' now. In relation to being conscious. Yep. I've always been big on, forget the words, get to what the words are trying to convey. No problem with (calling it) 'subset conditioning'. Aside again, nobody else can read. The subset conditioning is the small chore. The 'inherited' kamma, the samskaras-vasanas, is the biggie. First you have to row a little boat. If you can ~laugh~, you ease to perpetuate kamma and cease the nasty feedback loops. If you are triggered and what triggers you, is important to recognize-see. So, if you can say: "I never did mind about the little things", important. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 21, 2023 14:05:18 GMT -5
I would suggest, when you had a glimpse the 15 years earlier, you had a temporary shift into essence-True Self, but the circuits of the old self became again operational, that is, the connections between neurons that constituted the imaginary self shifted back into operation. I would also suggest that from 15 years of ATA-T, this *practice* slowly began taking the energy out of the self-circuits-neural connections that constituted the imaginary self. And, suddenly the center-tent-pole just collapsed (that's what happened to Tolle in one night), there wasn't even the energy left to hold itself up. I would also suggest that "ZD" then lived wholly from essence-True Self. I have zero problem with your description, the little man in the head was yes, always imaginary, the false self IS imaginary, it's acquired, it's not who-what we are (thus the word false). All this fits perfectly into my POV (what Gurdjieff taught). Today seemed like a good day to say so. Tolle's experience fits perfectly into my POV, sleeping on park benches for 2 years afterwards. Life can be thoroughly disrupted, as, it takes a period of adjustment to begin living from this newness, to know how-to-be, what-to-do. I agree. It didn't dawn on me until a few years ago that following that dramatic shift in 1984 this character lived in exactly the same state of mind that Tolle described. The only difference was that it dissipated after about three days whereas Tolle apparently stayed in that state for two or more years. He claims that 80% or more of his thinking simply stopped and did not return. In my case old incessant thinking patterns returned fairly quickly as a result of wanting to understand what had happened, and the default mode neural network got re-activated as the intellect got cranked back up to full speed. I also agree with the speculation that the thousands of hours of ATA-T had the effect of gradually putting pressure on the default mode neural network until one day it suddenly shifted to a new neural pathway that I often refer to as "a unified perspective neural pathway." None of the dramatic non-local stuff happened following that second shift, but thinking patterns definitely changed. There was an initial period of intermittent fear that selfhood might re-assert itself as a result of reflective thought, but that quickly ended because it was so easy to return to silence and confirm what had been seen. As you correctly noted, there was a gradual deepening process of integration and embodiment that continued to unfold, but fortunately, this character never had to deal with the kind of past psychological traumas that many people describe. Consequently, there didn't seem to be any vasanas that people like Tyler Matthew describe that needed to be released. It was more like, "Oh, now there's freedom because there's no longer a "me" that doesn't feel free and there's no longer a "me" that's at the center of anything that's happening." haha! One of the small ironies of life is that becoming a total loser is a lot of fun! That's an interesting statement. Coz I would associate fear with the CT perspective, so from that perspective there could only be fear that in ATA-T (or deeper, such as NS) something might be irrevocably lost, but not the other way around. So there can't be fear in ATA-T that selfhood might return. After all, that fear would be based on reflective thought, right? Dunno if that make sense. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 14:09:54 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you're saying. essence is your True Self, what you are born with. Anything you can consider, and you have it at birth, that's from essence. The false self is what's acquired after birth. So, you have your neurons at birth, so they belong to essence. (You actually have the most neurons you will ever have, at birth, they get trimmed as you grow. That's ordinary neuroscience). In learning, experience, collecting data, that process is the forming of connections between neurons. That's acquired after birth, so that's defined as the false self (our word is personality). I've never said any differently. Now, after this process of shifting back from living from the false self to living through essence, new connections are formed, new neural connections. This is a different ballpark, I've never written about that before (that is called second education, just to put a name on it. You could say Tolle was going through this second education, while sleeping on park benches and afterwards. JMO [just my opinion]). If all that doesn't address your point, ask differently. Using the same terminology there is only essence (what we are) manifesting however it manifests. , most times I even write it with or as. Second sentence, we're still not exactly on the same page. Written earlier, [1] Ground, Source, All That Is; [2] essence-True Self, this is the true individuation. {ZD combines [1] and [2], essence is not in any way separate, ouroboros explained this well. But you recognize we have a body, I accept that as good enough (for sdp)}. [3] The false self, the imaginary self, what we are-not, but what most people think they are. |
|
