|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 12, 2024 5:00:23 GMT -5
Some great insight here, and narcissism is a subject that has held interest for me. I might come back to it, but I'm not in a chatty mood right now <seth> I may or may not return, again according to those rhythms of which I speak, but know that I am present and approachable…</seth>  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 12, 2024 11:36:33 GMT -5
Yes, exactly. The more severe the backlash, the harder the false self becomes (and thus the more separated from the true self). Kids who are beaten for no reason, can develop severe mental illness. Some are treated so harshly they develop split personality disorder, one personality cannot contain the pain. These can become psychotic killers, who usually start with killing small animals. Hurt people hurt people. Parents pass their wounds on to their children. ...to ZD, in our view the true self is indeed a child, so very vulnerable, very very vulnerable. The true self is the true individuation, not the Whole. Still no power here, not even a projected time of power back on (very unusual). Just checking in. Yes...'true individuation'...that works for me. In an imaginary 'perfect world' of 'true individuations', what would individuations think and feel? What would their experience be of themselves? How would they behave? To be clear, I'm not suggesting you want that world, I'm asking to get a clear idea of what you see as your potential as an individuation. probably thousands of years in the future. Without rules and laws society would probably become pretty quickly "Lord of the Flies". I think we will probably have in the next 50 years unimaginable change. The path is not forward in time in the future, it's vertical, upward, like sNs Plotinus diagram. I don't know what the future holds. I have had several various plans, they didn't work out. Where I live now, it took 15 minutes to decide to buy, 2 & 1/2 years ago. It fell into my lap. The move upward may or may not change your outer life. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 12, 2024 12:58:52 GMT -5
Yes...'true individuation'...that works for me. In an imaginary 'perfect world' of 'true individuations', what would individuations think and feel? What would their experience be of themselves? How would they behave? To be clear, I'm not suggesting you want that world, I'm asking to get a clear idea of what you see as your potential as an individuation. probably thousands of years in the future. Without rules and laws society would probably become pretty quickly "Lord of the Flies". I think we will probably have in the next 50 years unimaginable change. The path is not forward in time in the future, it's vertical, upward, like sNs Plotinus diagram. I don't know what the future holds. I have had several various plans, they didn't work out. Where I live now, it took 15 minutes to decide to buy, 2 & 1/2 years ago. It fell into my lap. The move upward may or may not change your outer life. Yeah, it's imaginary/hypothetical. But given your spiritual approach/goal, you must have a pretty clear idea of what a 'pure individuation' is like...? The kind of thoughts/feelings, experiential qualities, behaviors? And I see 2 different contexts for the question I'm asking. There's a pure individuation is this world. And then there's pure individuation in a pure world. In THIS world, are there are spiritual teachers that you see as 'pure individuation'? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 12, 2024 15:09:10 GMT -5
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? To suggest that existential beliefs are ineffable reflects a belief in one’s self existence as being that. Mentioning that what you are that exists believes in other’s that can write isn’t a play of words. 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. If you have a completely different notion of what an existential belief is then let me know. 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. and belief are two words that just don't go together. Do you believe that 2 + 2 = 4? I get what you're saying, butt do you know what Existential is? It's a mindful concept. As laffy states, it refers to the ineffable. That to is a conceptual belief. So what we have is something that has been conceptualised to the moon and back to describe something. Then used as a get out of free card to explain the unexplained. For some reason apart from the princess, no one seems to know how this process works. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 12, 2024 15:16:55 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? It's not about the space between your eyes. It's about the mindful beliefs that refer to the ineffable. The ineffable that is a mindful concept. An Existential belief that is conceptualised to explain what Kan't be explained. Then when you have understood the conceptual belief. Then burn it, not be an advocate for it. This is what I am trying to put forth. I have the comparison for mind and beyond. I don't need with all respect some moment to notice the space between my eyes. What is absent, isn't the notion or the belief that is absent. No good pointing to what is space or what is absent from a mindful position. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 12, 2024 15:21:42 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. No worries, I am not going to sub quote all this. What I have been trying to put forth isn't silliness at all. I am trying to put forward the understanding of what are mindful beliefs and not. The whole package deal of knowings vs beliefs that have to reflect what is 100% true in reflection of knowing what you are. Knowing what you are doesn't equate to existential beliefs that are ineffible in my eyes. Ineffable that has been understood to mean something conceptual in the first place. I have agreed to disagree already although the replies kept coming. I will leave it here without a doubt. Not really liking the energy much. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 12, 2024 15:30:35 GMT -5
Again, it's a general comment just to solidify my thoughts. You don't seem to comment on the important bits. Why is that? As I noted before, I have no reference for any other bodies than those that I see, so phrases such as "etheric body" or "astral body" have no meaning here. During a CC in 1984 it was clearly seen that what we call "reality" is undivided, infinite, and alive, and that awareness is primordial. Something unimaginable was also apprehended, but no words can begin to describe it. Afterwards, I incorrectly assumed that I was a separate volitional person/entity who had apprehended the infinite, but that illusion collapsed fifteen years later when the past sense of "me" vanished without a trace. It was then finally understood that all there is is THIS--the entire field of all being which is incomprehensibly intelligent and manifests as all that IS. There is a self reference, using your terminology, but it's not remotely the same as it was in the past because "the little guy in the head" disappeared in 1999 and it never returned. I use the word "person" in conversations with people who think they are separate volitional persons, but among people who are familiar with non-duality (or people who have discovered what they are) I use the word "individual" rather than "person" in order to distinguish between individuation and the sense of selfhood associated with the idea of a volitional "me." I do this because on this forum we distinguish between people who imagine me-ness and people who have penetrated that illusion. The term SVE (separate volitional entity) might be more appropriate than SVP because it would entirely remove the word "person" from the definition. From my POV reality is non-dual and duality only exists imaginatively in the form of images, ideas, and symbolic language. FWIW, I think that we generally agree upon most issues discussed on the forum, but are there other important bits that I haven't commented on? It's no problem having no references for what I speak of, I don't have references for what you talk about at times. What I am questioning however as I do at times is that when peeps speak of realizing something that pertains to S.R. that doesn't encompass the spirit or the soul that subsequently relates to the person being a SVP and therefore an illusory counterpart of the Self for use of the better word, then you have to question the lack of references for aspects that could relate to the person that encompasses a spirit and a soul. That individual peep that can't be a SVP in the grand scheme of things. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 12, 2024 15:38:33 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. What is paradoxical is mindful even though the meaning can point to what isn't. This is the mind trap when peeps what to make out something that perhaps isn't mindful. What is paradoxical can be used to try and get away with mindfulness that isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 12, 2024 16:34:08 GMT -5
As I noted before, I have no reference for any other bodies than those that I see, so phrases such as "etheric body" or "astral body" have no meaning here. During a CC in 1984 it was clearly seen that what we call "reality" is undivided, infinite, and alive, and that awareness is primordial. Something unimaginable was also apprehended, but no words can begin to describe it. Afterwards, I incorrectly assumed that I was a separate volitional person/entity who had apprehended the infinite, but that illusion collapsed fifteen years later when the past sense of "me" vanished without a trace. It was then finally understood that all there is is THIS--the entire field of all being which is incomprehensibly intelligent and manifests as all that IS. There is a self reference, using your terminology, but it's not remotely the same as it was in the past because "the little guy in the head" disappeared in 1999 and it never returned. I use the word "person" in conversations with people who think they are separate volitional persons, but among people who are familiar with non-duality (or people who have discovered what they are) I use the word "individual" rather than "person" in order to distinguish between individuation and the sense of selfhood associated with the idea of a volitional "me." I do this because on this forum we distinguish between people who imagine me-ness and people who have penetrated that illusion. The term SVE (separate volitional entity) might be more appropriate than SVP because it would entirely remove the word "person" from the definition. From my POV reality is non-dual and duality only exists imaginatively in the form of images, ideas, and symbolic language. FWIW, I think that we generally agree upon most issues discussed on the forum, but are there other important bits that I haven't commented on? It's no problem having no references for what I speak of, I don't have references for what you talk about at times. What I am questioning however as I do at times is that when peeps speak of realizing something that pertains to S.R. that doesn't encompass the spirit or the soul that subsequently relates to the person being a SVP and therefore an illusory counterpart of the Self for use of the better word, then you have to question the lack of references for aspects that could relate to the person that encompasses a spirit and a soul. That individual peep that can't be a SVP in the grand scheme of things. I'll let Laughter, or someone smarter than I am, translate what you wrote here and explain it in a way that I can understand.  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 12, 2024 16:44:36 GMT -5
It's no problem having no references for what I speak of, I don't have references for what you talk about at times. What I am questioning however as I do at times is that when peeps speak of realizing something that pertains to S.R. that doesn't encompass the spirit or the soul that subsequently relates to the person being a SVP and therefore an illusory counterpart of the Self for use of the better word, then you have to question the lack of references for aspects that could relate to the person that encompasses a spirit and a soul. That individual peep that can't be a SVP in the grand scheme of things. I'll let Laughter, or someone smarter than I am, translate what you wrote here and explain it in a way that I can understand. that tenka says that there is no absolute reference, no matter that one believes that he "realized" such an absolute reference. It isn't a matter of "smarter", but that of our beliefs preventing us from observing / understanding / even imagining what doesn't fit them. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 12, 2024 16:51:23 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. What is paradoxical is mindful even though the meaning can point to what isn't. This is the mind trap when peeps what to make out something that perhaps isn't mindful. What is paradoxical can be used to try and get away with mindfulness that isn't. yes agree. I'd say that 'following the pointer' or a 'realization of what is ineffable' takes us out of conditioned mind/beliefs, but not out of mind itself. BUT, as we had previously experienced the conditioned mind to be the totality of mind, it authentically seems as if mind has gone. What was experienced as being 'there' is now absent. And that's because the dominant pattern of our conditioned mind is to objectify, measure and rationalize. When this is suddenly gone in the realization of ineffability, it's very striking. So I think both you and Laffy are right, you are just talking/looking at it from different angles. As I haven't had the kind of realization/experience that you had, can you explain why you would say 'mind' was gone? Perhaps it would be useful if you clarified exactly where mind begins and ends...? My understanding of mind is that it is in every cell of the body. So every body function connects to mind. Bladder is full, mind is involved. Leg stretches out, mind is involved. So even if we are deeply asleep or unconscious, there is still mind. But I think you probably define 'mind' a little differently? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 12, 2024 16:57:05 GMT -5
It's no problem having no references for what I speak of, I don't have references for what you talk about at times. What I am questioning however as I do at times is that when peeps speak of realizing something that pertains to S.R. that doesn't encompass the spirit or the soul that subsequently relates to the person being a SVP and therefore an illusory counterpart of the Self for use of the better word, then you have to question the lack of references for aspects that could relate to the person that encompasses a spirit and a soul. That individual peep that can't be a SVP in the grand scheme of things. I'll let Laughter, or someone smarter than I am, translate what you wrote here and explain it in a way that I can understand. I'm not able to follow that one either, maybe Tenka can reconstruct or re-arrange it a bit, there was a lot going on in that paragraph. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 12, 2024 17:05:35 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. No worries, I am not going to sub quote all this. What I have been trying to put forth isn't silliness at all. I am trying to put forward the understanding of what are mindful beliefs and not. The whole package deal of knowings vs beliefs that have to reflect what is 100% true in reflection of knowing what you are. Knowing what you are doesn't equate to existential beliefs that are ineffible in my eyes. Ineffable that has been understood to mean something conceptual in the first place. I have agreed to disagree already although the replies kept coming. I will leave it here without a doubt. Not really liking the energy much. Looked back and I started this sub-thread of dialog, so I'll leave your last word here as it is. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 12, 2024 17:07:12 GMT -5
It's no problem having no references for what I speak of, I don't have references for what you talk about at times. What I am questioning however as I do at times is that when peeps speak of realizing something that pertains to S.R. that doesn't encompass the spirit or the soul that subsequently relates to the person being a SVP and therefore an illusory counterpart of the Self for use of the better word, then you have to question the lack of references for aspects that could relate to the person that encompasses a spirit and a soul. That individual peep that can't be a SVP in the grand scheme of things. I'll let Laughter, or someone smarter than I am, translate what you wrote here and explain it in a way that I can understand. I'd say an oversimplified version of what he wrote (or my understanding of it) would be: "I disagree with the idea of 'no person gets enlightened', or 'if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him'". |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 12, 2024 17:19:07 GMT -5
Existential and belief are two words that just don't go together. Do you believe that 2 + 2 = 4? I get what you're saying, butt do you know what Existential is? It's a mindful concept. As laffy states, it refers to the ineffable. That to is a conceptual belief. So what we have is something that has been conceptualised to the moon and back to describe something. Then used as a get out of free card to explain the unexplained. For some reason apart from the princess, no one seems to know how this process works. That's not how I have always understood the word, existential. It means actuality, not a copy, which a concept is, not imaginary. But there can be accounts of existential events. |
|
I'll keep replying until I begin to suspect that it is the replies themselves that are the source of that satisfaction.
