|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 21, 2023 16:57:26 GMT -5
That's a cool 'in the dream' facet that demonstrates the inherent wisdom of the body....body/intuitive responses that lie beyond intellect/overt, obvious minding/mental processes.
The firing of neurons/synapses (whatever) in the brain, is a physical phenomena. "One singular movement" points beyond ALL physical phenomena that that which is prior to/beyond.
The problem with using that scientific finding to try to make the point for Oneness/no separation is that is reifies the apparent body and brain processes as fundamentally "causal" to the experiential making of a choice. When really, those brain processes AND the sense of choosing are BOTH facets of experience.....neither has actual causal/catalyzing, "inherent power," over the ohter. Both are temporal expressions of the unchanging.
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. Any reference for something deeper.....more truly "essential and True" than any of that appearance based stuff? |
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 21, 2023 17:04:57 GMT -5
The relative experience is rife with various assumptions that if you look closer, are not really appearing at all. Does "power" actually appear or it inferred in the experience/relative happenings of stuff getting done?
The same means by which it is realized that there is ultimately "no doer" despite the fact that experientially, stuff seemingly "gets done," is the same realization by which it's seen that the experiencing of being a me character who makes choices, is not actually evidence of "volition."
Just as the 'doer' gets seen through, so does "volition/personal agency/power to choose."
While it may very much seem as though there is personal "power/agency" in play to influence and determine outcomes, SR, a seeing from beyond/prior to it all, clearly reveals that that was only ever an erroneous assumption....if you really look, 'where' exactly is that power....'who' exactly holds it?....who/what does it belong to?
Again, this is important. There doesn't have to be a doer for things to unfold differently. Again, living from {bare} attention and/or {bare} awareness takes the energy out of the connections between neurons AKA the false self. This disengages the gears of the false self, and frees the True Self to emerge. Thoughts, feelings-emotions and events unfold differently because the feedbacks loops of the false self are no longer operational. (See posts above). Now, all this is not so easy to see, because the false self feedback loops continue to lead one astray, your thoughts jump to the existing ruts. (Why do I know this is true? Because I've been here 14 years). There is a higher seeing that reveals all of that to be one singular, seamless circumstance. Ultimately, nothing appearing in that pattern of apparently distinct events/happenings, is actually causal to anything else.
You are describing the 'in the dream view,' whereby a process appears, one link in the chain causal to another. In reality, it's all one seamless appearance....nothing truly/actually lying causal/creative to anything else.
It's all fine and good what you're saying there if self-help/being more consciously aware....Jed McKenna's "human adulthood" is the goal, but the view from the shift in locus of seeing that is SR/wakefulness, ref-rames all of that and illuminates any and all causal processes to be illusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 21, 2023 17:10:06 GMT -5
He also used to sometimes write something along the lines of "everyone is always ever doing the best that they can". I also say that all the time, but Carol doesn't like my insertion of the word "best." She prefers to say, "Everyone is just doing what they do," but I still prefer the flavor of "best" because it captures a little something extra that I can't quite define.  Nice.
Hubs and I were talking about just that the other day and we had a good laugh considering that really, no one ever sets out to do their 'worst'....unless of course, being very bad is high on their on their priority list of 'what is best'....  |
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 21, 2023 17:14:58 GMT -5
The relative experience is rife with various assumptions that if you look closer, are not really appearing at all. Does "power" actually appear or it inferred in the experience/relative happenings of stuff getting done?
The same means by which it is realized that there is ultimately "no doer" despite the fact that experientially, stuff seemingly "gets done," is the same realization by which it's seen that the experiencing of being a me character who makes choices, is not actually evidence of "volition."
Just as the 'doer' gets seen through, so does "volition/personal agency/power to choose."
While it may very much seem as though there is personal "power/agency" in play to influence and determine outcomes, SR, a seeing from beyond/prior to it all, clearly reveals that that was only ever an erroneous assumption....if you really look, 'where' exactly is that power....'who' exactly holds it?....who/what does it belong to?
I don't think there's a satisfying answer to that. Not 'the person' and not 'G-d'. Both positions are problematic for different reasons. (Although I can totally relate to where zd is coming from with the latter).
I just don't think that negates it, and counter by saying that if you look closely enough, the phenomenon is apparent and self-evident. Power isn't a great turn of phrase either, coz I spose it has those sort of connotations, i.e who wields it? But I say it does arise, momentarily. Directed intent is a kind of force, a movement, but ultimately it's not something someone has or does. Like focus I suppose. It happens. A sense of power that lies "causal" to outcomes very much may indeed arise, but is it "actual causal power"?...that is the question....SR reveals there are no actual causes within experience, even though the experience of causation may indeed be very compelling.
How would you ever know for certain that a particular action that you recall taking in a past experience, was "actually/ultimately" the reason/cause that your present moment arising experience is as it is?
Can you even be certain that your memory of what happened actually represents an "actual" event/happening?
|
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 21, 2023 17:19:48 GMT -5
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... I'm not so sure about that. I think most acknowledge that a personal self/me character does indeed arise in experience and that there is no need to deny that. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 17:28:58 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. Any reference for something deeper.....more truly "essential and True" than any of that appearance based stuff? I don't write about or discuss experiences with anyone. I've mostly stuck to that, only have written about less than 'five fingers' worth, not very significant, one about going nine seconds into the future, I don't recall the point I was making. I have done threads somewhat about practices and experiences by way of analogy. You would say they were just 'appearance based stuff'. |
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 21, 2023 18:34:17 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. Can you see the future? Do you accept that there is an unknown? (at least for figs anyway). It's like that. I say agency begins with observing, with {bare} attention, {bare} awareness. (Most) everybody fought me for years on this, here, no, you can't even be aware of what you want to be aware of, they (mostly) all said. I don't argue this. ZD can ATA-T, and not claim personal agency. ATA-T is a name by any other name. I don't care to argue, but, no, [still] doesn't follow. But all this is why we need [1] Source, Ground, All That Is; [2] essence, True Self, true individuation; [3] the false self-imaginary self. [2] makes all the difference. Experientially speaking, there are times I have very much seemingly been able to see the future....and there are more times where I cannot and the future is of course, very much an unknown. All of that though, is relative...experiential. The 'sense of' personal agency/volition to act/behave independently and freely, is very much a part of experience pre-SR that is taken to be actual, never questioned... But what SR reveals is that that sense, was always erroneous...an inference based upon the mistake of the imagined SVP. |
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 21, 2023 18:41:26 GMT -5
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? . OK, admittedly the following is speculation, a predilection. "Can "God" make a rock so heavy he can't lift it"? Can stuff exist other than All That Is? My answer is creativity. I'd say Source-Ground is Intentional. Can Source-Ground be ~Greater~ than It Is? I'd speculate ~we~ exist, figuratively, as an "apple" that doesn't fall too far from the tree. So One Tree can ~make~ a Thousand apples, that's what Individuation IS. So ~we~ are an extension of Creativity, to see what we can contribute-to and add-to and be-different from All That Is. This works better for me than "God" playing hide and seek from Herself. That's saying it simply, I don't think I'm up to today, saying it more complicated. Probably 1970 I learned about Leibniz and his view of Monads (kind of a basic unit of Oneness). It seemed verily like a good idea, such that I never forget it. This is very akin to the Consciousness Units of Seth (Jane Roberts). Let's call it the Lego theory of All That Is. Have you ever seen what they can make of of Legos? >This world< is made from Legos. So ~we~ are a kind of sparkly seed, each unique, a packet of potential. Consciousness Intends to see what consciousness can-do-with its potential. That's about all I've got, today. But, less than 1% even get to the point of exercising their potential, it's not easy to get there. (Thus the question, do you know your future? And, is there an unknown for figs? (As analogy). The fact that we can make many different things from "Legos" does not negate the basis of All That Is, is "Legos". It's complicated. That question involves a context mix. "God" is but a pointer...and "a rock so heavy it cannot be lifted" is a tangible, experiential facet.
To the question, "can stuff exist other than all that is?"......It's phrased in an awkward way. I'm not entirely sure what's being asked. All I can say is there is ultimately but one thingless thing and all apparent things appear/arise in/as that.
The idea that Source-Ground is intentional, is the taking of a pointer and conceptualizing it. "Ground" is not a some-thing for which "intention" even could apply.
All these ideas/questions serve as a good example of how mind tries to go where it has no place. Those questions that are mind-contrived do not have pat, fixed, existentially sound, answers.
|
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 21, 2023 18:42:57 GMT -5
I also say that all the time, but Carol doesn't like my insertion of the word "best." She prefers to say, "Everyone is just doing what they do," but I still prefer the flavor of "best" because it captures a little something extra that I can't quite define. I can define it. It ties in with your 'can only unfold one way' and 'perfection' stances. I just can't get on board with it! It's basically determinism par excellence, as opposed to my ' fated yet not determined' stance …. which I'm still working on. Ah okay....that's good to know...good for me to remember as we have these convos. The more info. like this, the better imo. |
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 21, 2023 18:44:00 GMT -5
I can define it. It ties in with your 'can only unfold one way' and 'perfection' stances. I just can't get on board with it!It's basically determinism par excellence, as opposed to my ' fated yet not determined' stance …. which I'm still working on. From the Multiverse perspective.. everything that is happening on this Earth has already happened on an original Earth and what we're experiencing could be nothing more than a very elaborate and sophisticated replay. Interesting and cool "theory." But as such, it will never make the cut when it comes to realized Absolute Truth...and Absolute, existential answer. |
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 21, 2023 18:45:36 GMT -5
E' used to explain that to gopal as "clipping" .. but he never advised it, just described it.  I never noticed those conversations. Makes sense though. Extremes have something new in them in the beginning. New information that's wanted and needed. Though you can't keep collecting the same information and pretend it's original. Who/what is it though that judges/determines what garners the label of "extreme"? |
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 21, 2023 18:48:08 GMT -5
Any reference for something deeper.....more truly "essential and True" than any of that appearance based stuff? I don't write about or discuss experiences with anyone. I've mostly stuck to that, only have written about less than 'five fingers' worth, not very significant, one about going nine seconds into the future, I don't recall the point I was making. I have done threads somewhat about practices and experiences by way of analogy. You would say they were just 'appearance based stuff'. I would indeed, yes, but that does mean i would not be interested, quite interested indeed, in hearing about those experiences. I've had some doozies of woo-woo meself and they were quite life changing in some very important and pertinent ways. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 21, 2023 19:46:00 GMT -5
I also say that all the time, but Carol doesn't like my insertion of the word "best." She prefers to say, "Everyone is just doing what they do," but I still prefer the flavor of "best" because it captures a little something extra that I can't quite define. I can define it. It ties in with your 'can only unfold one way' and 'perfection' stances. I just can't get on board with it! It's basically determinism par excellence, as opposed to my ' fated yet not determined' stance …. which I'm still working on. 's got nuthin' to do with conditions. It's .. well .. you know. Unconditional |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 21, 2023 19:52:47 GMT -5
E' used to explain that to gopal as "clipping" .. but he never advised it, just described it. I never noticed those conversations. Makes sense though. Extremes have something new in them in the beginning. New information that's wanted and needed. Though you can't keep collecting the same information and pretend it's original. very true .. "can't step in the same river for the first time twice" |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 21, 2023 20:05:06 GMT -5
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... There's no practicing being truthful 'pilgrim. You either lie, or you do not. |
|
