|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 12, 2024 21:49:46 GMT -5
That's 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'? Madame Ouspensky, the wife of PD Ouspensky, was bedridden at least the last 15 years of her life, at Franklin Farms, NJ. I'm sure she had one of the most wonderful lives anyone could ever have, including, and most particularly those fifteen years. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 12, 2024 22:16:55 GMT -5
That's 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'? Individuation is a word / concept I am not familiar with. wiki/IndividuationWhat does it mean to you? |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 12, 2024 22:17:34 GMT -5
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. Correct, its not about the space between your eyes. Its about the space between your physical eyes and the object they are observing. Have you ever consciously looked at space? Everyone sees the stars, but how many see the space in which they sit. That vital no-thingness called space in which every thing else arises and has being. I mean, where would anything be without the space to put it? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 12, 2024 22:28:21 GMT -5
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'? Individuation is a word / concept I am not familiar with. wiki/IndividuationWhat does it mean to you? Jung’s Definition of Individuation C. G. Jung defined individuation, the therapeutic goal of analytical psychology belonging to the second half of life, as the process by which a person becomes a psychological individual, a separate indivisible unity or whole, recognizing his innermost uniqueness, and he identified this process with becoming one’s own self or self-realization, which he distinguished from “ego-centeredness” and individualism. The self, the totality of personality and archetype of order, is superordinate to the ego, embracing consciousness and the unconscious; as the center and circumference of the whole psyche, the self is our life’s goal, the most complete expression of individuality (Jung 1916/1928, 1939a, 1944, 1947/1954, 1963). The aim of individuation, equated with the extension of consciousness and the development of personality, is to divest the self of its false wrappings of the persona, the mask the personality uses to confront the world, and the suggestive... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We have developed a common language here. Most of us agree there is no SVP, no separate volitional person. Person is the word under discussion. There isn't a person, but there is an individual. The person is imaginary. The individuation is not imaginary, it's actual. Person means "to divest the self of its false wrappings of the persona, the mask the personality uses"... I'd say Jung's use of the word pretty-much agrees with my understanding of individuation. (I haven't even read it in full yet, this particular reference). |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 12, 2024 22:54:38 GMT -5
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'? Individuation is a word / concept I am not familiar with. wiki/IndividuationWhat does it mean to you? well, SDP used it in this convo, but I'm also familiar with it from the ''Conversations with God'' series, which I really liked at the time of reading. To me, it's the idea of there being a 'wholeness', and then there are 'individuations' of the wholeness. It basically means the same as 'individual', but it has a softer tone to it, and is a bit less personal-sounding than 'individual'. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 12, 2024 22:56:41 GMT -5
Individuation is a word / concept I am not familiar with. wiki/IndividuationWhat does it mean to you? Jung’s Definition of Individuation C. G. Jung defined individuation, the therapeutic goal of analytical psychology belonging to the second half of life, as the process by which a person becomes a psychological individual, a separate indivisible unity or whole, recognizing his innermost uniqueness, and he identified this process with becoming one’s own self or self-realization, which he distinguished from “ego-centeredness” and individualism. The self, the totality of personality and archetype of order, is superordinate to the ego, embracing consciousness and the unconscious; as the center and circumference of the whole psyche, the self is our life’s goal, the most complete expression of individuality (Jung 1916/1928, 1939a, 1944, 1947/1954, 1963). The aim of individuation, equated with the extension of consciousness and the development of personality, is to divest the self of its false wrappings of the persona, the mask the personality uses to confront the world, and the suggestive... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We have developed a common language here. Most of us agree there is no SVP, no separate volitional person. Person is the word under discussion. There isn't a person, but there is an individual. The person is imaginary. The individuation is not imaginary, it's actual. Person means "to divest the self of its false wrappings of the persona, the mask the personality uses"... I'd say Jung's use of the word pretty-much agrees with my understanding of individuation. (I haven't even read it in full yet, this particular reference). Interesting, didn't know that Jung used it. I think what I said was a pretty decent simplified version of that. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 12, 2024 23:11:31 GMT -5
individuationJung’s Definition of Individuation C. G. Jung defined individuation, the therapeutic goal of analytical psychology belonging to the second half of life, as the process by which a person becomes a psychological individual, a separate indivisible unity or whole, recognizing his innermost uniqueness, and he identified this process with becoming one’s own self or self-realization, which he distinguished from “ego-centeredness” and individualism. The self, the totality of personality and archetype of order, is superordinate to the ego, embracing consciousness and the unconscious; as the center and circumference of the whole psyche, the self is our life’s goal, the most complete expression of individuality (Jung 1916/1928, 1939a, 1944, 1947/1954, 1963). The aim of individuation, equated with the extension of consciousness and the development of personality, is to divest the self of its false wrappings of the persona, the mask the personality uses to confront the world, and the suggestive... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We have developed a common language here. Most of us agree there is no SVP, no separate volitional person. Person is the word under discussion. There isn't a person, but there is an individual. The person is imaginary. The individuation is not imaginary, it's actual. Person means "to divest the self of its false wrappings of the persona, the mask the personality uses"... I'd say Jung's use of the word pretty-much agrees with my understanding of individuation. (I haven't even read it in full yet, this particular reference). Interesting, didn't know that Jung used it. I think what I said was a pretty decent simplified version of that. Just about everything Jung said and wrote and did was about his own spiritual journey. His life was his own motivation. He put his life into a book, The Red Book. It's available now, pretty expensive. I don't think I would ever buy. Probably the most important part are the pictures, he drew. The Red BookThe most influential unpublished work in the history of psychology. When Carl Jung embarked on an extended self-exploration he called his “confrontation with the unconscious,” the heart of it was The Red Book, a large, illuminated volume he created between 1914 and 1930. Here he developed his principle theories—of the archetypes, the collective unconscious, and the process of individuation—that transformed psychotherapy from a practice concerned with treatment of the sick into a means for higher development of the personality. While Jung considered The Red Book to be his most important work, only a handful of people have ever seen it. Now, in a complete facsimile and translation, it is available to scholars and the general public. It is an astonishing example of calligraphy and art on a par with The Book of Kells and the illuminated manuscripts of William Blake. This publication of The Red Book is a watershed that will cast new light on the making of modern psychology. 212 color illustrations. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 13, 2024 6:29:51 GMT -5
That's 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'? The way is straight up, vertical, it need not have anything to do with this world (look around). I'm going to reply to sN of a couple of days ago concerning this. It's on the quotes thread. Looks like sN has departed. He'll be back in 4-5 weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2024 8:17:03 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.  Soz if it didn't make sense. It still makes sense to me as I read it again, but I will break it down somewhat. A peep has a Self Realisation and then declares that the selfhood is illusory. The selfhood / person that in their eyes refers to being a SVP. Now if your belief system encompassed an understanding that the person is an individuated aspect of all there is, that is embodied by an individuated spirit and soul then the realisation had wouldn't reflect the person as being illusory or whatever word fits the bill. So it can depend on what one's initial beliefs were in the first place to then reflect upon what was supposedly realised. Like said many times, those that believe the world and everything of it is a dream can only do so based upon their beliefs of what a dream is in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2024 8:22:19 GMT -5
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. It is our beliefs prior to realisation that allows us to speak of what the realisation reflects. I didn't believe that I was some sort of separate entity to begin with prior to my realisation but I dare say some did and then understood post realisation that they are not. What does play its part in all of this is what they fundamentally believe in regards to what we are in relation to the concepts used. Otherwise nothing would make a blind bit of sense. If a dumb, deaf and blind peep that had virtually no experience of life, and had a minimum sense of conceptual understandings then a realisation had couldn't reflect the absence of them for there would be no associations had in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2024 8:26:02 GMT -5
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. .. Let's get back to basics here. What is ineffable? A mindful concept to explain the unexplained. You can't have a realisation of what is ineffable. You can transcend mind and then associate a concept to it. Do you see a difference? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2024 8:36:45 GMT -5
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. 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...? Everything experienced through self awareness is of the mind. As Niz or Ramana said, where there is the lighter's flame, here I am, here is the world. All thoughts, feelings, experiences, notions that pertain to what you are that has awareness of I am or self are no longer when there has been transcendence of the mind. So to answer question mind begins with self and ends with no self. Some will say that in deep sleep or the void reflects the same, it depends on their beliefs in this regard, all these means and terms for states or non states will have us all tied up forevermore. I don't think anyone has the monopoly on any of this. For myself, the moment I gained self awareness I believe mind was present. I was present in reflection of it. Of course mind is the foundational environment for self awareness within experience. Here is the world, Here I am. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 13, 2024 8:47:39 GMT -5
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'". Thanks. If that's what he meant, then we definitely disagree about that. From my POV THIS, in the form of an individual body/mind organism, is what discovers what's going on (the "living truth" in the words of Jesus and others). We use the word "person" to refer to people/individuals who have not yet seen through the illusion of the SVP. I also disagree about his idea regarding beliefs. If I stub my toe on a rock, I directly "know" (gnosis) that I stubbed my toe, and any belief about that is secondary and unnecessary. However, in both cases I think it's just a language/definition issue and Tenka's "there is only what you are" is the same thingless thing that many of us are pointing to. We simply make a distinction between the meaning of "person" and "individual." I think Tenka's primary argument is with posters who would claim that the individual is unreal or "a point of perception" only. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2024 8:51:06 GMT -5
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. . It means actuality, not a copy, which a concept is, not imaginary. But there can be accounts of existential events. This is part of the parcel of beliefs had associating what conceptual terms means to them. They can differ somewhat. I mean look at the conceptual term consciousness and how many beliefs peeps associate with that. This is also why I used to question folks that had supposedly Self Realised to come out with the term Consciousness lol. I initially thought that existential beliefs must reflect one's belief in their own existence. To look online there are many suggestions of what existential beliefs refer too. This is the problem we have with using a concept to then create a foundation upon that in some ways are used to emphasise some kind of super trump truth thing that is realised. (not pointing to anyone in particular) |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2024 8:57:29 GMT -5
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'". I also disagree about his idea regarding beliefs. If I stub my toe on a rock, I directly "know" (gnosis) that I stubbed my toe, and any belief about that is secondary and unnecessary. .. You're changing context here. In the context of stubbing your toe, it happens, but one will believe that it happened based upon a belief had in 'what they are' that can stub their toe in the first place. Like said a thousand times, this is integrated within our belief system, just like the floor will be beneath my feet when I roll out of bed is. My thoughts were aimed towards realisations had and 100% knowings or existential beliefs that are devoid from having a belief in what they conceptually mean in the first place and what is said thereafter in reflection of them. |
|
