|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 3, 2023 19:17:50 GMT -5
Can you explain how a personal premise is problematic and why an impersonal one makes better sense?
Interesting question, and there are several ways to approach it. The impersonal premise offers both opportunity and pitfall, as does the personal. This is perhaps illustrated by the extremes. Just look to pop culture for the extreme of the personal premise. The spiritual ideal of the personal premise is total and sincere devotion to God. The extreme of the impersonal premise - prior to realization as to the nature of the dichotomy - is a complete emotional detachment. The spiritual ideal of the impersonal premise is elevated wisdom and a deep love for the world. In thinking back to your writings on the meditation, it doesn't seem to me so easy to pigeon hole it in terms of either premise. To choose one, I'd say personal, because it is focused on reactivity, so, the focus is on personal reactivity. And yet, the "solution" to the reactivity is impersonal, in that your advice is to observe the reaction and let it pass. In that, your descriptions always seemed to me to directly invoke self-inquiry, begging the obvious question .. "what reacts?". If you're interested, I could advocate for an impersonal premise. I'm personally biased toward an impersonal premise from personal experience.  Yes. Please advocate for the impersonal premise. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 3, 2023 19:23:24 GMT -5
Do you want to explore this? Liberation means, first, liberation from one's own thoughts, feelings/negative emotions, derogatory actions. Most people, probably 95%, don't even know they are ~caged~. If you want to explore a self limiting belief, then you have to refrain from using other people as an example. Is that an acceptable place to begin? Sure. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 3, 2023 19:25:00 GMT -5
If one believes that something " is immeasurably difficult to achieve", then so it is for him. This is easily experienced through hypnosis. Many inductions begin with tiring your eyes, mostly by suggestion, so the subject finds it hard to open his eyes. The difficulty / failure to do it, furthers the deepening of the trance. yep agree. Though congruence of belief can be difficult to achieve  (I know, I know) I had to look it up to make sure I recall it correctly: - Congruence
Geometry
In geometry, two figures or objects are congruent if they have the same shape and size, or if one has the same shape and size as the mirror image of the other. More formally, two sets of points are called congruent if, and only if, one can be transformed into the other by an isometry, i.e., a combination of rigid motions, namely a translation, a rotation, and a reflection
 I think that if you (impersonal) believe something to be difficult, then it is difficult for you (impersonal). So the first thing is to change that belief. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 3, 2023 20:21:44 GMT -5
yep agree. Though congruence of belief can be difficult to achieve (I know, I know) I had to look it up to make sure I recall it correctly: - Congruence
Geometry
In geometry, two figures or objects are congruent if they have the same shape and size, or if one has the same shape and size as the mirror image of the other. More formally, two sets of points are called congruent if, and only if, one can be transformed into the other by an isometry, i.e., a combination of rigid motions, namely a translation, a rotation, and a reflection
I think that if you (impersonal) believe something to be difficult, then it is difficult for you (impersonal). So the first thing is to change that belief. I mean it more like this Rogers said: “Congruence is associated with ‘awareness’ and constitutes the ‘state’ of a person who is ‘genuine’, ‘whole’, ‘integrated’, ‘without facade’, ‘adjusted’;'' “It is the term we have used to indicate an accurate matching of experiencing and awareness. It may be still further extended to cover a matching of experience, awareness, and communication…He [the congruent individual] is one unified person all the way through, whether we tap his experience at the visceral [gut, organismic, or physiological] level, the level of his awareness [consciousness, or symbolization], or the level of communication.” www.nlpworld.co.uk/nlp-glossary/c/congruence/ |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 3, 2023 20:35:16 GMT -5
yep agree. Though congruence of belief can be difficult to achieve (I know, I know) I had to look it up to make sure I recall it correctly: - Congruence
Geometry
In geometry, two figures or objects are congruent if they have the same shape and size, or if one has the same shape and size as the mirror image of the other. More formally, two sets of points are called congruent if, and only if, one can be transformed into the other by an isometry, i.e., a combination of rigid motions, namely a translation, a rotation, and a reflection
I think that if you (impersonal) believe something to be difficult, then it is difficult for you (impersonal). So the first thing is to change that belief. And here are the levels at which a changes happen. www.helpingyouharmonise.com/diltsSo, for example, if I change a 'belief', but the change at that level is in conflict with our 'identity', then the change may not stick. The desired change has to be congruent at the relevant levels. It's why, for example, some folks might have difficulty giving up smoking. If they see themselves as a smoker, and if all their family smoke...so they get meaningful relationship connection through smoking...then it is likely to be harder than for someone who simply experiences smoking as a habit. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 3, 2023 21:11:28 GMT -5
I observe feelings and thoughts etc, but only assume a self. The aggregates (feelings, thoughts etc) are undeniable because the experience of them is direct, but I have never experienced 'myself'. The was an occasion I did 'see myself' but I immediately knew it's a ghost and not actually me. In contrast, I was still there where I actually belong, in the driver's seat, as opposed to living as that horrid thing which is nothing but wound up impulses from craving and aversion. You don't assume a sense of self, you experience it. It's a visceral sense, it's tangible and it's not doing any craving. It's not changing or suffering. You will have the sense of self no matter what you are thinking or not thinking. You never say I'm not me today because I'm having some different thoughts. You are you no matter what. But that fundamental sense is entangled with egoity which does partake of craving and aversion. The driver's seat is that sense of self with no one in it. But most people prior to stream entry, if you want to use that particular categorization, can't tell the difference or disentangle the pure sense of self from changing phenomena which is why it's possible to say I'm not myself today. so they work on that which is external and that's a large part of modern-day Buddhist psychology which is nonsense. But go to the absorption states of the Jhanas and mindfulness and you're getting closer to what I believe Buddha would have taught. In the meantime I cannot take at face value a single word that is attributed to the Buddha since nothing was written down for a long time after his passing. Most of what people read today are commentaries. For me it's quite simple. If I read some Buddhist teaching and it's not my experience then I immediately dismiss it. I think in my other post about the ghost I explained what it's like for me, so can't really say more. I don't know what a mindstream or a jhana is. It's true that me who is aware isn't craving or suffering, and entanglement with ego is also true. It's just that I can discern between the one I am and the one who isn't me because I've seen my own ghost.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2023 21:57:48 GMT -5
You don't assume a sense of self, you experience it. It's a visceral sense, it's tangible and it's not doing any craving. It's not changing or suffering. You will have the sense of self no matter what you are thinking or not thinking. You never say I'm not me today because I'm having some different thoughts. You are you no matter what. But that fundamental sense is entangled with egoity which does partake of craving and aversion. The driver's seat is that sense of self with no one in it. But most people prior to stream entry, if you want to use that particular categorization, can't tell the difference or disentangle the pure sense of self from changing phenomena which is why it's possible to say I'm not myself today. so they work on that which is external and that's a large part of modern-day Buddhist psychology which is nonsense. But go to the absorption states of the Jhanas and mindfulness and you're getting closer to what I believe Buddha would have taught. In the meantime I cannot take at face value a single word that is attributed to the Buddha since nothing was written down for a long time after his passing. Most of what people read today are commentaries. For me it's quite simple. If I read some Buddhist teaching and it's not my experience then I immediately dismiss it. I'm no longer sure what you mean by having a sense of self, the ordinary self. I understand what ZD means. ZD experiences a flesh and blood body, sweat and tears. But for ZD there is no 'animating' self. I used to think that satch did consider that there was an animating self, that that's what you meant by self. Now it's pretty clear you are closer to the view of ZD. So it seems you have a completely different ~framework~ than lolly or ouroboros or zazeniac or sdp. For myself, I take responsibility for what the body does. Now, it's complicated, the source and reasons for thoughts and feelings and actions, but I'm a "The buck stops here" person. Now, I don't think sdp is in any sense separate from what you-all mean by All That Is, but there is a *person* here, flesh and blood. Volition is problematic. I basically concur that all our thoughts and feelings and actions arise from conditioning and programming, "garbage in, garbage out". Volition only enters as ~being-aware-of~ thoughts, feelings and actions, or ~being-attentive-to~ thoughts, feelings and actions. But, despite this, sdp is still responsible. My actions are filtered through the physiology of my brain-mind-body, the senses and the neurophysiology, not a direct ~outflowing~ of All That Is. Purification, is about dealing with all these parameters. If one does not know the law, of karma, this is not a cause for one to feel innocent if one ~commits a crime~, that is, subjects oneself to the law of karma. Thus, sdp is responsible. But the problem is, cause and effect occurs in a *whirlwind* of subconscious processing, and so day by day activities seem untied to my self. But everything that happens to you is from the principle of LOA. IOW, actions always have consequences. I presume this is not how satch sees the universe operating. I have no view whatsoever of how the universe operates. I wouldn't know what question to ask. But what you describe about taking responsibility etc is also my experience, but not as a volitional doer. If I'm being responsible then that responsibility just arises spontaneously from awareness. Why do I say that? Because I'm aware that awareness is fundamental and unchanging and that is what I truly am. Thoughts, feelings, responsibility, simply arise from that. You seem to suggest that with no such identification as an individual that would result in me feeling innocent if I committed a crime. Why? Would not the feeling of guilt also arise spontaneously without doership? What I don't understand is why you are having difficulty with the sense of self. When you wake up in the morning and before a single thought enters your mind do you cry out, who the hell am I until a thought appears reminding you of what your name is and where you are? You are a man. Do you have to keep saying to yourself I'm a man I'm a man I'm a man to know that you're a man? That knowledge is intrinsic without being conscious of it. You're not thinking I am a man but if I ask you, are you a man you will say without hesitation yes because it is intrinsic and in the same way the sense of self, of sentience of aliveness, of being conscious is intrinsic. That sense of knowing that you are you is there no matter what clothes you are wearing or what feelings or thoughts you are experiencing or whatever you are seeing. You have a knowledge that you are YOU. The reason you are having difficulty is that you are thinking about what it means rather than what it simply is. That's why I keep saying that mind is the only obstacle to knowing your true nature. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 4, 2023 3:38:35 GMT -5
I have this quote written on the first page of a notebook that I write in regularly. "When we go beyond any self-imposed limitation, we experience a profound sense of relief accompanied by a flood of new life force."It may have been from Seth, though I can't say definitely. Worded that way, it doesn't seem to be from Seth: linkA restricted internet search yielded this article: anotherslice.life/2021/03/22/a-profound-sense-of-relief/, in which the author talks about her " profound sense of relief" for getting vaccinated. I'd say that her beliefs caused her "profound sense of relief", and she didn't realize it, or as stardustpilgrim put it: she didn't realize that she was "caged" (fooled ...). My Internet Security blocked the first link. It was written before the pandemic, but thanks for the impetus to find a source. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 4, 2023 3:40:07 GMT -5
I have this quote written on the first page of a notebook that I write in regularly. "When we go beyond any self-imposed limitation, we experience a profound sense of relief accompanied by a flood of new life force." It may have been from Seth, though I can't say definitely. That's a good un. Also sounds like Abe, they like the words 'relief' and 'life force' Yeah I like it, and I've found it to be very true to varying degrees. Yeah.. could have been.  |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 4, 2023 3:41:15 GMT -5
If you want to explore a self limiting belief, then you have to refrain from using other people as an example. Is that an acceptable place to begin? Sure. Cool. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Aug 4, 2023 6:44:16 GMT -5
I can relate to all that. No I don't think we can control what arises. Although to my mind, due to the nature of kamma that isn't entirely random … and that is to say that, contrary to popular opinion there is some responsibility borne for our current predicament, whatever that may be, even though ultimately there is non-one per se to bear it. In any event it's transmuted in the now, which is what it means to say that, that is where the point of power is. You're right that otoh judgement should ideally be left to G-d, which incidentally is a poetic way of describing kamma in action, but that otoh value judgment tends to happen quite naturally anyway as part n parcel of the expression of life. As to that being part of the problem, I don't necessarily think value judgement is all bad, on the contrary. And doubtlessly the more pure, i.e.the more present, the more spontaneously 'good' any action will be. Right, (although to be clear I consider that some way down the line in terms of successive rebirths for everyone here and that 'formless bliss' will almost certainly currently be misconscieved from the current vantage point). But "where your heart" lies is a noble enough sentiment, and realistic goal, and it's auspicious that you're conscious of it. And the good news is that, that very desire will result in renewed becoming/rebirth both momentarily and more broadly speaking after the death of the current individuated expression in due course. So you don't need to concerning yourself too much with 'formless bliss' anytime soon. I don't mean that at all sarcastically, in case it comes across that way (fwiw I put myself in a similar category). I would just suggest to perhaps be aware that an interest in the bodhisattva ideal could easily be tinged with measure of avoidance too. I mean literally just to be aware ….. of that potential. Cool, thanks for the thoughtful reply, it made sense to me, I don't have much to say....maybe I'm just not feeling chatty today. Only thing I will clarify is that for me, the 'Boddhisatva' thing isn't a path I feel I consciously choose, it's not something I consider 'noble'. It's really just....'That guy just kicked that dog and I don't like the feeling of that, nor do I like the feeling of not liking the feeling, so I'm going to heal that overall perception and transmute that vibration'. It's quite selfish really lol. Along with that, I also can't deny the sense of 'inner purpose' that is present within me sometimes, though again I can't say I chose that. It exists within me, and I have to live with that. It's as much my cross to bear as it is my blessing. I understand where you're coming from and honestly I wouldn't be too worried about not liking the feeling of not liking seeing the dog get kicked. I've no doubt its spontaneously compassionate, and not contrived, and is therefore metta and a natural part of the path of clarity. Frankly, seeing animals mistreated can make me feel quite angry. However, in widening the perspective there's different ways we can go with this, such as to perhaps to consider the scenario from a LOA type standpoint where there may be a 'relationship' between perceived victim/perpetrator playing out in a bigger picture patterning sort of way. Kammically if you like. To be clear, that's not to imply two individuations may have unresolved 'beef' from previous incarnations or wotnot, just that certain qualities of patterning come together an play out in an almost symbiotic fashion. Additionally, I would just say that I don't think 'buddhahood' is necessarily all about passive witnessing either. It's been noted that a buddha is far from defenceless, (although of course they're unlikely to dash over and start kicking the dude in retaliation). These are interesting considerations actually and ultimately 'Bhagavad Gita's - story of Arjuna and Krishna' type considerations, where "the setting of the text in a battlefield has been interpreted as an allegory for the struggles of human life". Two things to consider here. The first is that this all ties in with what it means to say that samsara is subject to dukkha. The situation is intrinsically imperfect. The second is that, that doesn't mean there isn't a best course of action in any given scenario, and the more pure the intent, the more spontaneous or readily apparent that will be. Really, all that comes through the cultivation of the opposites of the three defilements which I talked about earlier in the thread, which are wisdom, non-attachment/generosity, and loving -kindness (metta), and are requisite for enlightenment. Like the difilements, we can think of those opposites as core expressions which take various paths (detailed as paramitas, if anyones interested). And as virtues, can be considered as at least in part, transcendent.
The last thing I want to say here is that the greatest effort isn't concerned with result … which is really to say it's a spontaneous in the moment thing. I'm sure some will come along and say, ah, well that's effortless, and ...sure, if you like. Funnily enough I wasn't feeling chatty either, but what you raised 'invoked' a reply. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Aug 4, 2023 7:00:03 GMT -5
The truth is I don't remember the last time I read a book, and I wasn't familiar with that title but just perused the synopsis. Interesting and most assuredly death is not the end. It's just where winter transitions into spring. That death is no end is one of the few things I'm supremely confident about and one day I might get around to waxing lyrical about some 'between life' memories I think I might have. Although don't expect a lot, hehe. Anyway, I'll definitely put that book on my list for the next time I travel (which is when I tend to read, if ever). I like that it doesn't sound too strenuous. Trust me, it's an easy read....I don't read either, but in lockdown December 2020, the situation was a little unusual. I read that book and played the piano for the first time in 20 odd years. Haven't done either since. I'm interested in your between life memories if you want to share sometime. Like you it is something I am sure about, though I do believe that the options beyond death are wide (I don't mean the Christian 'heaven and hell' thing) Sure, the movement to talk about that may arise at some stage.
Whilst we're at it I've got a recommendation for a very easy read some might find interesting. It's called 'The Celestine Prophecy' by James Redfield. I read it many years ago when I was travelling actually. It wouldn't surprise me if you're already familiar.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 4, 2023 7:06:59 GMT -5
That's a good un. Also sounds like Abe, they like the words 'relief' and 'life force' Yeah I like it, and I've found it to be very true to varying degrees. Yeah.. could have been. I don't think we will get very far with this. First, I would not equate the word belief with self-imposed limitation, IOW, beliefs are not self-imposed limitations. I would say a belief means a kind of shortcut of pre-processed evaluation for "rules" for daily living, so you don't have to evaluate every tiny decision from scratch. Self-imposed limitations are mostly subconscious, that is, we are not aware of them. We think we live in wide open spaces, that is, consciously, but in fact, we live in a tiny cage. The tiny cage is constructed from unconscious self-imposed limitations. The sentence that started this dialogue was from blood, sweat and tears experience, not subconscious assumptions AKA self-imposed limitations. I have my own demons, I know them well. I don't talk about practices or [inner] experiences, anywhere. When I've talked about my past, that's because it has passed. So I'm mostly a closed book, personally, here, necessarily. Basically, all I've ever written about here is about self-imposed limitations, impersonally and theoretically. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 4, 2023 11:40:13 GMT -5
Yeah I like it, and I've found it to be very true to varying degrees. Yeah.. could have been. I don't think we will get very far with this. First, I would not equate the word belief with self-imposed limitation, IOW, beliefs are not self-imposed limitations. I would say a belief means a kind of shortcut of pre-processed evaluation for "rules" for daily living, so you don't have to evaluate every tiny decision from scratch. Self-imposed limitations are mostly subconscious, that is, we are not aware of them. We think we live in wide open spaces, that is, consciously, but in fact, we live in a tiny cage. The tiny cage is constructed from unconscious self-imposed limitations. The sentence that started this dialogue was from blood, sweat and tears experience, not subconscious assumptions AKA self-imposed limitations. I have my own demons, I know them well. I don't talk about practices or [inner] experiences, anywhere. When I've talked about my past, that's because it has passed. So I'm mostly a closed book, personally, here, necessarily. Basically, all I've ever written about here is about self-imposed limitations, impersonally and theoretically.Is it time to go beyond them yet? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 4, 2023 12:19:45 GMT -5
Alignment means returning to your natural state of being, and that can only happen by letting go. And that is either NOW or never. Purification, OTOH, means running after some ideal (aka imaginary, unnatural) state of being and that can only happen thru effort, practice. And that is never NOW, but always tomorrow (which never comes). Once you realize that there is only NOW and that what you are actually after is your natural state (which just is, i.e. you can neither lose it nor earn it), you'll also realize that suffering as well as karma are actually optional. And I'd say the Shakyamuni story illustrates that rather clearly, that karma and suffering are optional. The moment you fully step into the NOW, you leave the realm of karma. The moment you step out of the NOW, you enter the realm of karma. It's that simple. That's what the Buddhist story about the tigers and the strawberries is all about. People make too much of this karma stuff. In Zen they call this a donkey-tying pole. Don't be a donkey!  A few of us here don't consider it quite so easy. I'd guess this represents at minimum five hours of time on the part of ouroboros, and years of study and effort, practice. Did you read in full? I read because of interest. I can see the blood, sweat and tears, quite literally. I could say a lot more, but not here, not now anyway. I'll have some more material, defense, elsewhere, parallel, soon, fly-removal. One of the primary "enemies"-obstacles is self-delusion. Recognizing the donkey is not so easy. The law of karma is just like the law of gravity, unavoidable. Consequences are always tied to actions. If you want to throw out cause and effect, you have moved away from Buddhism. Yes, read in full, twice. And from the relative, deliberate creation perspective, I agree that it is well-written and could be quite useful. However, from the absolute, liberation/SR/TPTPAU perspective, it is riddled with flawed premises. Which, to me, makes it quite clear that he has no actual reference for any of that, i.e. he is just speculating. The main mistake is that he insists that liberation is conditional and so he places liberation firmly in the relative context. |
|
