|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 8, 2024 15:14:01 GMT -5
Apologies to all including tenka for the cut-wall, but, it just seemed like the way to go with this one. Sorry!  Yeah, well, neither am I.  A statement that something is absent is not a statement of a presence of something that is absent.  The source of that convoluted statement is your mistaking my statement of an absence for a statement of belief. At that point, we'll just have to either agree to disagree or perpetuate silliness. You're playing with the word " exists". The existential truth is ineffable. We can point to it with the idea that all there is is what we are. In the existential context no thing has an independent existence in and of it's own. By metaphor: just like the light of the Moon is dependent upon the Sun, the "existence" of the "me" that can read is only a borrowed reflection of the ineffable infinite that is not two. You might not agree with that, but it is a pointing to the existential truth. To you it sounds like a belief, but what I'm pointing to is an absence of a thing that you seem to believe is very much present. That's fine, I've got no interest in changing your mind.  Now, you can go so far as to say that my expression of the metaphor involves the belief that I find the metaphor apt, and that's an argument not really worth having, and I've already conceded that point. But this is my mind, and I tell you what you think is in here, is not.
A statement that refers to an absence of something refers that something to be absent. How can one refer to something that is absent without first relating to it? Butt you refuse to accept that I'm referring to an absence, as you keep on insisting that I have an existential belief, when I've told you I have none. I've got zero interest in engaging in your question because it's TMT. To suggest that existential beliefs are ineffable reflects a belief in one’s self existence as being that. Nah, we'll just have to either agree to disagree or keep writing silliness, because I say that's a pointer, not a belief. Here is an example of one of my statements that you can call a belief and I won't disagree: One significant difference between a pointer and a belief is that if the listener is "believing" the pointer without finding "what it is pointing to" for themselves, then that belief robs the believer of a potential realization or non-conceptual insight. Mentioning that what you are that exists believes in other’s that can write isn’t a play of words. First off, that's not what you wrote. Second off, "otherness" is the same as unique perspective, which is self-evident and doesn't require belief, third off (this is a pointer), existentially speaking, there are no others, and if you want to understand that pointer more deeply, refer back to the Sun/Moon metaphor. The Sun is what you refer to as "there is only what we are", the Moon is unique perspective. There is only one Sun. You might not agree with that, or you might dislike or discount the metaphor, but why crusade against it? What you are exists yer? What you conclude that is or entails to any degree will be a belief based upon that which is said to be true. Your question is self-inquiry. Any belief you form in answer to the question of self-inquiry is flawed, because a belief involves an abstraction based on an idea, and the answer to self-inquiry is beyond apprehension by any and all ideas. If you have a completely different notion of what an existential belief is then let me know. . Are you even reading what I'm writing in this dialog? Another factor to take into consideration that existential beliefs are conceptual through understanding what the meanings mean to you. Another existential belief reflecting that what you are can associate and assimulate meaning to what that is. So we have an existential belief in what you are that can attribute meaning to concepts to then either refute them or describe them as ineffable. If something is ineffable then it is that, but one has to understand what that means in reflection of a belief in oneself. That is an existential belief. If everything that points to THAT and is not hitting the mark and everything should be burnt I don't understand how you can hold a stance like you do. Burn the meaning of what existential beliefs mean to you. For I think the third time now, you don't understand because you never lit the fire. To be clear, I'm not flexing with that. From what I can tell, climbing the flagpole is completely unnecessary, as there a myriad of potential life stories prior to realization of the existential truth. "Existence", in the way I'm referring to it is a non-conceptual pointer. Tolle and Niz used the terms "being" to distinguish between the relative, personal context that you keep using the word in. We'll either have to agree to disagree on this contextual issue, or keep writing silliness, but sorry, I refuse to give you any satisfaction here. I'll keep replying until I begin to suspect that it is the replies themselves that are the source of that satisfaction. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 8, 2024 15:33:27 GMT -5
Just for the record, Niz was taught all this from his teacher, he wrote a book from his teacher's teaching that covers all this territory, your posts today. I haven't read it, I don't have it, but it's 'on my list'. Here. (The price never comes down, which is unusual on Amazon. I was wrong, the new 2023 edition is $19.99, five dollars cheaper, must be a print-on-demand version). Master of Self-Realization - International Edition: An Ultimate Understanding Paperback – July 25, 2023 by Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj (Author) In this book is a collection of 130 talks that were given by Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj, guru of Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj and Shri Ranjit Maharaj. The talks in this book were recorded and edited by Nisargadatta Maharaj and were originally published by him in two volumes in the Marathi language under the name of "Adhyatma Jnanacha Yogeshwar" in the years 1960 and 1961. The text was reprinted in the year 2000 at the insistence of Shri Ranjit Maharaj. Afterwards it was translated into English for this book, truly a modern day spiritual classic in its own right. Also included within the covers of this book is the text "Master Key to Self-Realization" which was authored by Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj in the form of a methodical explanation of many fundamental principles of Advaita Vedanta and Self-Realization. The teaching found here helps the aspirant to form a solid foundation for understanding the fundamental principles of non-duality and in realizing one's True Nature. Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj was the disciple of Shri Bhauseheb Maharaj who mainly taught the path of Meditation as a means to realization. During his spiritual practice, Siddharameshwar Maharaj spent much of his time practicing meditation and reflecting on the teachings of great Saints such as Shri Samartha Ramdas, a renowned Maharashtran Saint of the 17th century (author of Dasbodh and Manache Shlok), as well as the teachings of Adi Shankaracharya, Valmiki and Vasisthta, and other great Saints such as Kabir, Tukaram, Eknath, (author of Eknathi Bhagwat), and others. After the passing away of his master Shri Bhausaheb Maharaj in the year 1914, Siddharameshwar Maharaj continued meditating on the teachings of his Master. In 1918, he renounced the world and joined four of his brother disciples to popularize his Master's teachings. In the year 1920 when he was on the tour of popularizing his Master's teachings, he got the idea that one could go beyond the path of many years of long meditation as a means for realization and that meditation is an initial stage to attain Final Reality. His brother disciples disagreed with Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj, saying that their master, Shri Bhausaheb Maharaj has not told them this. He agreed with them, but stated, "Okay! Can one not go beyond that?" He left his co-disciples and returned to his home in Bijapur. While in Bijapur he meditated for nine months continuously without a break. Since his Master had taught him only meditation, he had no other means to find out the way to attain the Final Reality without long arduous meditation. He said, "I will attain the Final Reality even at the cost of my life." By the grace of his Master Shri Bhausaheb Maharaj he attained the realization of Final Reality. From that time on he taught "The Bird's Way" instead of the path of meditation. Now we are blessed with Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj's precious teaching on the Bird's Way. Thanks, been browsing some. Maybe this will help tenka (and others to understand tenka). [And I thought I had invented the term small s self]. 2.10 "The base is true; I without I, but it doesn't speak." There are four levels of speech, beginning with the mahakarana body, in which pure knowledge of existence provides the basis for all the thoughts that arise through the three lower bodies. That base is true-you can never deny your own existence. However, that existence is free from the veiling effect of ignorance, which means that there is no longer an identification between the "I" and the sense of physically limited and time-bound ego. That illusion is not there at this level. The pure knowledge is there as a base ("I without I"), but there are no concepts or thoughts, so that consciousness does not speak. 2.11 "What is true? Self without self." The word "Self," like the word "I," points back to the one who is uttering it. It is a "reflexive" word, one that indicates the eternal subject, rather than one of Its objects. The real owner of the word Self is the One who is always present, the very essence of reality, reality Itself. It is a very sacred word and receives an upper case letter "S." On the other hand, the small ego-self receives a lower-case letter "s" to indicate its insignificance. It is rebuffed, dismissed as the impostor it is. This fraudulent self robs you of your birthright, which is to know yourself as you truly are, the universal and ever-free Self of all. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 8, 2024 17:05:36 GMT -5
If thoughts create feeling, then thoughts aren't just menu. A loving thought creates a loving feeling, an appreciative thought that creates an appreciative feeling (and then a feeling can trigger another thought too). In this sense, thoughts would be the cooking process. Whether the plate of food tastes good or not, depends on how well it's cooked. Also nothing that has ever be created, has been created without imagination. I think there's a danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater...thoughts are creative, and express energy. With that said, logically it's true that if one wants to know 'only Being', then in that moment, mind has to be 'destroyed'. But why is that the goal? I woke up early, knew I wasn't going back to sleep, was poking around. Earlier, I didn't answer you completely here. I'll answer partially, again, but come back to it. First, a clarification. Your 'being' is like all aspects, combined, the whole of you, kind of like an average. ~You~ are a continuum, so your being would be kind-of an overall average from end to end. But here you probably meant the question of the deepest aspect of one's being. I'm answering in two parts as I'm going to finish in a reply to laughter (his reply to your reply) so you won't get a notification. But this is why everyone has a different level of being. Reading your messages today, and there's something I don't fully understand....maybe you have explained it, but it would be good to hear it in simple terms. Your model of 'true self-essence and false self' is very meaningful to you. What are the qualities of the true self-essence? Are these qualities universal to all true selves, or are there some that are unique to each of us? Also, if the question arises....let's say.....'what shall I have for dinner tonight'?....is that a question that could arise from the true-self? Or is that a false-self question? I'm interested in the precise line between true and false self, in terms of thought, intention, feeling, behavior.... I don't know if this can be explained in a couple of paragraphs to me, but if so....a couple would be good (I can get overwhelmed with bulky text) |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 8, 2024 17:18:41 GMT -5
Apologies to all including tenka for the cut-wall, but, it just seemed like the way to go with this one. Sorry! A statement that refers to an absence of something refers that something to be absent. How can one refer to something that is absent without first relating to it? Butt you refuse to accept that I'm referring to an absence, as you keep on insisting that I have an existential belief, when I've told you I have none. I've got zero interest in engaging in your question because it's TMT. To suggest that existential beliefs are ineffable reflects a belief in one’s self existence as being that. Nah, we'll just have to either agree to disagree or keep writing silliness, because I say that's a pointer, not a belief. Here is an example of one of my statements that you can call a belief and I won't disagree: One significant difference between a pointer and a belief is that if the listener is "believing" the pointer without finding "what it is pointing to" for themselves, then that belief robs the believer of a potential realization or non-conceptual insight. Mentioning that what you are that exists believes in other’s that can write isn’t a play of words. First off, that's not what you wrote. Second off, "otherness" is the same as unique perspective, which is self-evident and doesn't require belief, third off (this is a pointer), existentially speaking, there are no others, and if you want to understand that pointer more deeply, refer back to the Sun/Moon metaphor. The Sun is what you refer to as "there is only what we are", the Moon is unique perspective. There is only one Sun. You might not agree with that, or you might dislike or discount the metaphor, but why crusade against it? What you are exists yer? What you conclude that is or entails to any degree will be a belief based upon that which is said to be true. Your question is self-inquiry. Any belief you form in answer to the question of self-inquiry is flawed, because a belief involves an abstraction based on an idea, and the answer to self-inquiry is beyond apprehension by any and all ideas. If you have a completely different notion of what an existential belief is then let me know. . Are you even reading what I'm writing in this dialog? Another factor to take into consideration that existential beliefs are conceptual through understanding what the meanings mean to you. Another existential belief reflecting that what you are can associate and assimulate meaning to what that is. So we have an existential belief in what you are that can attribute meaning to concepts to then either refute them or describe them as ineffable. If something is ineffable then it is that, but one has to understand what that means in reflection of a belief in oneself. That is an existential belief. If everything that points to THAT and is not hitting the mark and everything should be burnt I don't understand how you can hold a stance like you do. Burn the meaning of what existential beliefs mean to you. For I think the third time now, you don't understand because you never lit the fire. To be clear, I'm not flexing with that. From what I can tell, climbing the flagpole is completely unnecessary, as there a myriad of potential life stories prior to realization of the existential truth. "Existence", in the way I'm referring to it is a non-conceptual pointer. Tolle and Niz used the terms "being" to distinguish between the relative, personal context that you keep using the word in. We'll either have to agree to disagree on this contextual issue, or keep writing silliness, but sorry, I refuse to give you any satisfaction here. I'll keep replying until I begin to suspect that it is the replies themselves that are the source of that satisfaction. I read your conversation with Tenka with great interest as I clearly see/understand your points of view, and it's interesting for me to try to reconcile them within myself. I see truth in what you both say. Laughing a bit now, because the word 'modelless model' springs to mind. Carry on. I'm just passing time. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 8, 2024 17:39:44 GMT -5
I woke up early, knew I wasn't going back to sleep, was poking around. Earlier, I didn't answer you completely here. I'll answer partially, again, but come back to it. First, a clarification. Your 'being' is like all aspects, combined, the whole of you, kind of like an average. ~You~ are a continuum, so your being would be kind-of an overall average from end to end. But here you probably meant the question of the deepest aspect of one's being. I'm answering in two parts as I'm going to finish in a reply to laughter (his reply to your reply) so you won't get a notification. But this is why everyone has a different level of being. Reading your messages today, and there's something I don't fully understand....maybe you have explained it, but it would be good to hear it in simple terms. Your model of 'true self-essence and false self' is very meaningful to you. What are the qualities of the true self-essence? Are these qualities universal to all true selves, or are there some that are unique to each of us? Also, if the question arises....let's say.....'what shall I have for dinner tonight'?....is that a question that could arise from the true-self? Or is that a false-self question? I'm interested in the precise line between true and false self, in terms of thought, intention, feeling, behavior.... I don't know if this can be explained in a couple of paragraphs to me, but if so....a couple would be good (I can get overwhelmed with bulky text) I've never given any attributes, directly, of true self/essence, so I have never explained before. I was never given any attributes, only told: You have to find your essence (if you wish to work). But, generally, essence is that which you were born with, or born as. You can learn a lot from that alone. So essence includes the body, and the centers themselves, the intellectual center, the emotional center, the instinctive and moving centers, they are separate, but usually grouped together. Animals are almost all instinctive, many can stand within minutes of being born. The false self is acquired, it consists of the contents of the centers (stored information). I've heard a lot around here, mind is nothing but the thoughts, no thought, no mind. But that makes zero sense. How do thoughts arise in the first place? Basically you can look at it like a computer, hardware and software. Can you have software without hardware? (Or at minimum to manifest thoughts). There isn't a precise line between the true self and the false self, they are all mixed and jumbled together. What's for dinner, what would I like, can come from either true self or false self. Most thoughts come from the false self, all negative emotions come from the false self. (This is where the neural model ZD found comes into play, concerning the mind, there are certain self-circuits. But learning some skills are just learning, not involving a personal aspect). There are things in common that all true self individuals have. Our uniqueness comes from essence/true self, so there are some qualities only-you are/possess. So we are a mixture of true self and false self. Maybe an analogy would be, take two different 1000 piece jigsaw puzzles and dump them together, mix them up. One 'box' is true self and one box is false self. That's where we start from. We begin with self-study. The ~interior~ work is not done with the mind, the intellectual center, it is too weak and feeble and stupid. Attention and awareness exist outside the mind, emotions/feelings and the instinctive center and the body-moving-center. The work is done with attention, more particularly voluntary attention, and awareness. That's what I started with. That's really the only way to start, nevertheless, the best way. I try not to deviate from the way I was taught. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 8, 2024 19:24:27 GMT -5
Reading your messages today, and there's something I don't fully understand....maybe you have explained it, but it would be good to hear it in simple terms. Your model of 'true self-essence and false self' is very meaningful to you. What are the qualities of the true self-essence? Are these qualities universal to all true selves, or are there some that are unique to each of us? Also, if the question arises....let's say.....'what shall I have for dinner tonight'?....is that a question that could arise from the true-self? Or is that a false-self question? I'm interested in the precise line between true and false self, in terms of thought, intention, feeling, behavior.... I don't know if this can be explained in a couple of paragraphs to me, but if so....a couple would be good (I can get overwhelmed with bulky text) I've never given any attributes, directly, of true self/essence, so I have never explained before. I was never given any attributes, only told: You have to find your essence (if you wish to work). But, generally, essence is that which you were born with, or born as. You can learn a lot from that alone. So essence includes the body, and the centers themselves, the intellectual center, the emotional center, the instinctive and moving centers, they are separate, but usually grouped together. Animals are almost all instinctive, many can stand within minutes of being born. The false self is acquired, it consists of the contents of the centers (stored information). I've heard a lot around here, mind is nothing but the thoughts, no thought, no mind. But that makes zero sense. How do thoughts arise in the first place? Basically you can look at it like a computer, hardware and software. Can you have software without hardware? (Or at minimum to manifest thoughts). There isn't a precise line between the true self and the false self, they are all mixed and jumbled together. What's for dinner, what would I like, can come from either true self or false self. Most thoughts come from the false self, all negative emotions come from the false self. (This is where the neural model ZD found comes into play, concerning the mind, there are certain self-circuits. But learning some skills are just learning, not involving a personal aspect). There are things in common that all true self individuals have. Our uniqueness comes from essence/true self, so there are some qualities only-you are/possess. So we are a mixture of true self and false self. Maybe an analogy would be, take two different 1000 piece jigsaw puzzles and dump them together, mix them up. One 'box' is true self and one box is false self. That's where we start from. We begin with self-study. The ~interior~ work is not done with the mind, the intellectual center, it is too weak and feeble and stupid. Attention and awareness exist outside the mind, emotions/feelings and the instinctive center and the body-moving-center. The work is done with attention, more particularly voluntary attention, and awareness. That's what I started with. That's really the only way to start, nevertheless, the best way. I try not to deviate from the way I was taught. Thanks for making that a manageable read for me. More questions occur to me, but please only answer if this line of conversation is interesting and useful for you. I know we share views on the wounds and hurts that small children experience (Alice Miller...'The drama of being a child' was the first book my counsellor recommended to me. The second was a book by John Bradshaw.) So...many babies come out of the womb, crying and screaming. So when you say, 'essence is that which you are born with', do you mean that quite literally? Is the baby crying and screaming the 'true self/essence'? Or would that trauma/emotion be an aspect of what creates the false self? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 8, 2024 19:40:11 GMT -5
Apologies to all including tenka for the cut-wall, but, it just seemed like the way to go with this one. Sorry! Butt you refuse to accept that I'm referring to an absence, as you keep on insisting that I have an existential belief, when I've told you I have none. I've got zero interest in engaging in your question because it's TMT. Nah, we'll just have to either agree to disagree or keep writing silliness, because I say that's a pointer, not a belief. Here is an example of one of my statements that you can call a belief and I won't disagree: One significant difference between a pointer and a belief is that if the listener is "believing" the pointer without finding "what it is pointing to" for themselves, then that belief robs the believer of a potential realization or non-conceptual insight. First off, that's not what you wrote. Second off, "otherness" is the same as unique perspective, which is self-evident and doesn't require belief, third off (this is a pointer), existentially speaking, there are no others, and if you want to understand that pointer more deeply, refer back to the Sun/Moon metaphor. The Sun is what you refer to as "there is only what we are", the Moon is unique perspective. There is only one Sun. You might not agree with that, or you might dislike or discount the metaphor, but why crusade against it? Your question is self-inquiry. Any belief you form in answer to the question of self-inquiry is flawed, because a belief involves an abstraction based on an idea, and the answer to self-inquiry is beyond apprehension by any and all ideas. Already did that. Are you even reading what I'm writing in this dialog? For I think the third time now, you don't understand because you never lit the fire. To be clear, I'm not flexing with that. From what I can tell, climbing the flagpole is completely unnecessary, as there a myriad of potential life stories prior to realization of the existential truth. "Existence", in the way I'm referring to it is a non-conceptual pointer. Tolle and Niz used the terms "being" to distinguish between the relative, personal context that you keep using the word in. We'll either have to agree to disagree on this contextual issue, or keep writing silliness, but sorry, I refuse to give you any satisfaction here. I'll keep replying until I begin to suspect that it is the replies themselves that are the source of that satisfaction. I read your conversation with Tenka with great interest as I clearly see/understand your points of view, and it's interesting for me to try to reconcile them within myself. I see truth in what you both say. Laughing a bit now, because the word 'modelless model' springs to mind. Carry on. I'm just passing time. Aces. So you can now build a roofless house out of stoneless rocks and retire to the insideless inside to take a positionless position based on the modeless model. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 8, 2024 19:48:22 GMT -5
I read your conversation with Tenka with great interest as I clearly see/understand your points of view, and it's interesting for me to try to reconcile them within myself. I see truth in what you both say. Laughing a bit now, because the word 'modelless model' springs to mind. Carry on. I'm just passing time. Aces. So you can now build a roofless house out of stoneless rocks and retire inside to take a positionless position based on the modeless model. yes, that's about the size of it  I understand that everything we say here expresses our individual view of the world, life, God etc. We can't say something that doesn't express something about our view. Even if we say we have no view, it's still expressing a view and we still understand why we have no view. I guess that's similar to what Tenka is saying, and it makes reasonable sense. BUT I have to reconcile that with what is pointed to. ''The ineffable''...''the indescribable'' is (paradoxically) deeply meaningful to me. Perhaps even more meaningful is ''living indescribably''. Freedom from living a concept. Leaving no trace. This is It. A model that burns models. Is the only way I can reconcile the understanding of all this. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 8, 2024 19:54:32 GMT -5
Aces. So you can now build a roofless house out of stoneless rocks and retire inside to take a positionless position based on the modeless model. yes, that's about the size of it I understand that everything we say here expresses our individual view of the world, life, God etc. We can't say something that doesn't express something about our view. Even if we say we have no view, it's still expressing a view and we still understand why we have no view. I guess that's similar to what Tenka is saying, and it makes reasonable sense. BUT I have to reconcile that with what is pointed to. ''The ineffable''...''the indescribable'' is (paradoxically) deeply meaningful to me. Perhaps even more meaningful is ''living indescribably''. Freedom from living a concept. Leaving no trace. This is It. A model that burns models. Is the only way I can reconcile the understanding of all this. viewless view! Aces! keep'em comin' .. (tee hee) |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 8, 2024 19:57:10 GMT -5
yes, that's about the size of it I understand that everything we say here expresses our individual view of the world, life, God etc. We can't say something that doesn't express something about our view. Even if we say we have no view, it's still expressing a view and we still understand why we have no view. I guess that's similar to what Tenka is saying, and it makes reasonable sense. BUT I have to reconcile that with what is pointed to. ''The ineffable''...''the indescribable'' is (paradoxically) deeply meaningful to me. Perhaps even more meaningful is ''living indescribably''. Freedom from living a concept. Leaving no trace. This is It. A model that burns models. Is the only way I can reconcile the understanding of all this. viewless view! Aces! keep'em comin' .. (tee hee) |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 8, 2024 20:22:50 GMT -5
A statement that refers to an absence of something refers that something to be absent. Here is a near equivalent to what is being referred to. Take a moment while reading these words to stop for a moment and simply notice the space between your eyes and the words on the screen. Just notice the space and allow your attention to linger there a few moments.... Now, what is absent that makes space absent? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 8, 2024 20:44:15 GMT -5
I've never given any attributes, directly, of true self/essence, so I have never explained before. I was never given any attributes, only told: You have to find your essence (if you wish to work). But, generally, essence is that which you were born with, or born as. You can learn a lot from that alone. So essence includes the body, and the centers themselves, the intellectual center, the emotional center, the instinctive and moving centers, they are separate, but usually grouped together. Animals are almost all instinctive, many can stand within minutes of being born. The false self is acquired, it consists of the contents of the centers (stored information). I've heard a lot around here, mind is nothing but the thoughts, no thought, no mind. But that makes zero sense. How do thoughts arise in the first place? Basically you can look at it like a computer, hardware and software. Can you have software without hardware? (Or at minimum to manifest thoughts). There isn't a precise line between the true self and the false self, they are all mixed and jumbled together. What's for dinner, what would I like, can come from either true self or false self. Most thoughts come from the false self, all negative emotions come from the false self. (This is where the neural model ZD found comes into play, concerning the mind, there are certain self-circuits. But learning some skills are just learning, not involving a personal aspect). There are things in common that all true self individuals have. Our uniqueness comes from essence/true self, so there are some qualities only-you are/possess. So we are a mixture of true self and false self. Maybe an analogy would be, take two different 1000 piece jigsaw puzzles and dump them together, mix them up. One 'box' is true self and one box is false self. That's where we start from. We begin with self-study. The ~interior~ work is not done with the mind, the intellectual center, it is too weak and feeble and stupid. Attention and awareness exist outside the mind, emotions/feelings and the instinctive center and the body-moving-center. The work is done with attention, more particularly voluntary attention, and awareness. That's what I started with. That's really the only way to start, nevertheless, the best way. I try not to deviate from the way I was taught. Thanks for making that a manageable read for me. More questions occur to me, but please only answer if this line of conversation is interesting and useful for you. I know we share views on the wounds and hurts that small children experience (Alice Miller...'The drama of being a child' was the first book my counsellor recommended to me. The second was a book by John Bradshaw.) So...many babies come out of the womb, crying and screaming. So when you say, 'essence is that which you are born with', do you mean that quite literally? Is the baby crying and screaming the 'true self/essence'? Or would that trauma/emotion be an aspect of what creates the false self? Yes, quite literally. ......There is a quote by Gurdjieff about the moment of birth, I'll try to find it, I think from Beelzebub's Tales. But what you describe could be both. I have this theory. I've had interest in autism for years. I've read accounts of people who were severely autistic, nonverbal, and then later learned to speak or learn to communicate by keyboard. They were a complete person, completely aware, understood language and what was going on, but they were 'locked inside themselves'. But they remember what it was like to have been locked inside themselves. It was curious, even then, I considered I might have been close to being autistic. I was incredibly shy and withdrawn, liked to be alone as long as I can remember. (I really understood sree, at least he made sense, I never told him that). I was basically a loner, still am. The Outsider by Colin Wilson was a significant book for me. Sidetracked. So it seemed to me people who were autistic hadn't formed a cultural self, they still lived wholly through essence/true self. I coined that term, it sums it up. The small s self is our means of communication with the outside world, an intermediary of sorts. So then I began to consider what happened. I thought maybe it started even from birth, and thought why? And then I thought maybe autism starts from a not-normal childbirth, maybe from cesarean births. Maybe it's necessary to be stressed in birth. I did a little 'googling', and as I recall it had been suggested as a theory. I just stopped there. Yes, I've read several books by Alice Walker. She explains beautifully how some famous people, public figures, got screwed up by their parents. Buster Keaton comes to mind. His parents were in Vaudeville, and he started as a baby, he was basically used as a prop, a living prop. He is famous for his deadpan look. He was coached in that as a baby. No matter what we do to you, you can't cry, you can't have any expression. He became a great creative director and actor. Alice Walker also describes the childhood of Adolph Hitler, very nasty, horrible. Relationships between parent and child are interesting. There has to be a right balance. Too easy on the kid, it can go bad, a spoiled brat. Too severe on the kid, it can go wrong, you can create a monster. I personally 'don't believe in spanking', punishment. I don't think hitting a kid does any good, there are other means of negative reinforcement. Everything that happens to a kid has a part in forming the false self. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 9, 2024 8:28:44 GMT -5
Aces! I have a cousin in the eastern part of the state who is definitely not "woke". There's a political movement the goal of which is to create a giant middle-finger on the map to the entire West Coast. The obsessions of the wokester's with characteristic-based-identity is, in many ways, the opposite of the culture of Tolle, Adya and Spira. But, all roads lead to Rome, and you get a discussion on twitter, like the one you describe, that's accidentally about " Mu!" .. aces! Interesting! We drove through Idaho into Oregon, and stayed at an isolated town in west Oregon on Xmas day. It was a pleasingly quiet time, and I noted with interest some visible support for conservatives. I'm now in one of the grey central areas (on the map), and the vibe is different. Instinctively, I avoid resistance, and so I notice there seems to be a 'malleability' to my consciousness, that adapts to wherever I am. Within limit. The people I am house sitting for seem good people, but while they are away, I took the liberty of putting their BLM protest sign that usually sits outside the front door, into the garage  Missoula was a city that seemed to suit my consciousness quite well. Conservative at heart, but the college brings a younger more progressive vibe to it, which altogether, I found balancing. As a relative 'outsider', I'd be curious about why you think there is so much hatred exhibited between Americans these days, and is growing. It's an interesting phenomenon, as it has been there below the surface for a long long time. It is manifesting as a political pimple, of course, but there's more to it below it. You've seen a lot more of the States than most Americans, and could have an interesting perspective. TIA |
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Jan 9, 2024 10:57:13 GMT -5
Interesting! We drove through Idaho into Oregon, and stayed at an isolated town in west Oregon on Xmas day. It was a pleasingly quiet time, and I noted with interest some visible support for conservatives. I'm now in one of the grey central areas (on the map), and the vibe is different. Instinctively, I avoid resistance, and so I notice there seems to be a 'malleability' to my consciousness, that adapts to wherever I am. Within limit. The people I am house sitting for seem good people, but while they are away, I took the liberty of putting their BLM protest sign that usually sits outside the front door, into the garage Missoula was a city that seemed to suit my consciousness quite well. Conservative at heart, but the college brings a younger more progressive vibe to it, which altogether, I found balancing. As a relative 'outsider', I'd be curious about why you think there is so much hatred exhibited between Americans these days, and is growing. It's an interesting phenomenon, as it has been there below the surface for a long long time. It is manifesting as a political pimple, of course, but there's more to it below it. You've seen a lot more of the States than most Americans, and could have an interesting perspective. TIA One factor has to be the internet and social media, and the way it allows more people to profit by spreading anger-based and addictive thought patterns. The fake accounts and bots also don't seem like a good thing. Some have proposed legal changes to address that. Maybe there is a way to make anonymity less easy and convenient, but still possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 9, 2024 11:46:37 GMT -5
As a relative 'outsider', I'd be curious about why you think there is so much hatred exhibited between Americans these days, and is growing. It's an interesting phenomenon, as it has been there below the surface for a long long time. It is manifesting as a political pimple, of course, but there's more to it below it. You've seen a lot more of the States than most Americans, and could have an interesting perspective. TIA One factor has to be the internet and social media, and the way it allows more people to profit by spreading anger-based and addictive thought patterns. The fake accounts and bots also don't seem like a good thing. Some have proposed legal changes to address that. Maybe there is a way to make anonymity less easy and convenient, but still possible.
It's about power and control and manipulation. You're manipulated when you don't know all the facts, or who is doing the manipulating, using lies. It has always occurred to some extent. The internet has a wider reach, a worldwide reach. You have to be discerning not to be affected by the manufacturing. Persuading is a real thing. But you don't even need any Jedi mind powers. |
|
Yeah, well, neither am I. 
The source of that convoluted statement is your mistaking my statement of an absence for a statement of belief. At that point, we'll just have to either agree to disagree or perpetuate silliness.
