|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 13, 2024 14:52:06 GMT -5
The story of the Buddha is that he was deliberately insulated from all pain and ugliness for his entire life. Still, he had to nearly starve himself to death along the way. There is no good nor bad but that thinking makes it so. The false self can form up around any sort of history, good, or bad. Not to say I don't appreciate your intent here, but the answer to your question might not be what you think it is. He was materially insulated, but whether he was unconditionally loved by parents that had unconditionally accepted themselves....I doubt it. I think the false self develops for very particular reasons, but in the world we live today....even with Tolle and Kim Eng as parents, I suspect that a false self would still develop, because the structures and institutions of our world express that falsity. But my questions for sdp are hypothetical. Questions are hypothetical, until they're not.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 13, 2024 14:57:43 GMT -5
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. Perhaps it goes deeper than just language, but even then, the significance (or lack thereof) of any potential attachment to an idea or ideas is a personal matter for tenka. I tried pointing to the relative perspective of personality with a Sun(THIS)/Moon(Individual) metaphor. "Consciousness" would be the light of the Sun. "consciousness" would be the individuated body/mind. I don't recall reading any direct engagement with that in the dialog. As far as the "belief" spur of it goes, "Truth" is a barb to many a mind hook. Personally, I recall hyperminding on both words quite energetically at the start of the time with the head in the tiger's mouth. Tolle explains very early on in Now that he's not offering any sort of theory that he can prove. This opened my mind to his pointing (and opened that mouth). And that's the crux of it: when is an idea a pointer, and when does it become entangled with other notions that aren't? And some pointers can have dual interpretations. Some of those alternative interpretations of mind are downright silly and antagonistic, but not all. The mind makes the "oneness blob", and it seems to me that for most people, Oneness translates into "every thing, is interconnected". I've had dialogs with several members here that I perceive have a great depth of understanding, and yet, there can be some confusion of mind as to where intellect/heart starts and ends. But that's all just various insight about the structure and content of mind. As you point out, noone needs any such insight to pull their hand away from a hot stove. .. but even that was fodder for pages and pages of megathread, back in the day. Yes, I agree that the directness goes deeper than absence of language. It's not easy to express all this with words, but it's not the same as eating an orange, because even in a direct experience of eating an orange, there is still an 'effability' i.e there's something we COULD say about the experience. Whereas with 'the ineffable', the only thing we can say is that nothing can be said about it. So it's not a suspending of language or a stilling of mind. We have to authentically 'go there', or 'here', if that's a better way of saying it. (And yes, 'Oneness' HAS to go beyond 'blob' or 'interconnection')
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 13, 2024 14:59:31 GMT -5
He was materially insulated, but whether he was unconditionally loved by parents that had unconditionally accepted themselves....I doubt it. I think the false self develops for very particular reasons, but in the world we live today....even with Tolle and Kim Eng as parents, I suspect that a false self would still develop, because the structures and institutions of our world express that falsity. But my questions for sdp are hypothetical. Questions are hypothetical, until they're not. haha yes true. 'Purity from cultural self' is possible, in my view it's probably the norm rather than the exception in a broader multi-dimensional sense.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2024 15:00:27 GMT -5
.. 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? Well it depends on the definition of 'realization' I guess. .. Sure enough. It seems to be the crux of most disagreements when peeps are not on the same page. It kinda illustrates there is no absolute meaning to any self reference. I don't see eye to eye with most folk on this forum regarding key terminologies referring to mind and self etc. So when we start to talk of realisations that reflect the person as a SVP then Houston has a problem.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 13, 2024 15:11:37 GMT -5
Well it depends on the definition of 'realization' I guess. .. Sure enough. It seems to be the crux of most disagreements when peeps are not on the same page. It kinda illustrates there is no absolute meaning to any self reference. I don't see eye to eye with most folk on this forum regarding key terminologies referring to mind and self etc. So when we start to talk of realisations that reflect the person as a SVP then Houston has a problem. yes. Because definitions vary of 'realization', I don't even have a fixed definition now, I float with the wind on it depending on the conversation. I guess it relates to how my path unfolded. I've had transformative moments for sure when something within irreversibly and powerfully changed in the moment, and yet with hindsight, it all just seems like more pathway, more unfolding. It's hard for me to find huge significance in any one thing, so I guess the way I interact reflects that,
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2024 15:15:54 GMT -5
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. Okay, cheers. So then in deepest sleep, would you say that you are 'not present in reflection of it'? If so, how would you distinguish your realization from deep sleep? How do you know you didn't fall asleep? (I'm sure you know it wasn't that, but I'm interested in how you know). For myself, I don't really know what deep sleep is, I used the term to suggest that it could be for some a similar 'thing' to what I call beyond mind. What you asked is going to be difficult to explain, but what is a constant is that what you are is present at all times. What you are that is individuated within self awareness and what you are that isn't. I suppose it's the wave and the Ocean ting. When there isn't awareness of the wave there is still the Ocean that is what you are present. There isn't awareness of the Ocean being the Ocean. There is only the Ocean. The absence of self awareness. What could you say about that as a curiosity? Being the Ocean does have beingness about it that can be conceptualised as love and peace or whatever word floats peeps boats. Butt it isn't self related. There are no thoughts about this love, or where the fcuk has self gone. It is in a way a total flatline. After I reengaged with the world eventually I started to think about my family that didn't exist in this beingness, that made me cry my eyes out. The world was no more. Suffering is the awareness of self rather than not. Lots of things came to mind, but it wasn't realised per se. This is why I am banging on about associating conceptual beliefs in regards to what terminologies mean to them in reflection of what a realisation contains so to speak that doesn't entertain any such concept. It's making things fit to make sense or not and making sense of what doesn't is making sense of what doesn't. When you fall asleep and you are not dreaming or astral traveling, there isn't much present is there to recall? When you have transcended mind in the beingness of what you are, there is much to recall on, although what one makes of that is each to their own.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2024 15:18:44 GMT -5
.. Sure enough. It seems to be the crux of most disagreements when peeps are not on the same page. It kinda illustrates there is no absolute meaning to any self reference. I don't see eye to eye with most folk on this forum regarding key terminologies referring to mind and self etc. So when we start to talk of realisations that reflect the person as a SVP then Houston has a problem. yes. Because definitions vary of 'realization', I don't even have a fixed definition now, I float with the wind on it depending on the conversation. I guess it relates to how my path unfolded. I've had transformative moments for sure when something within irreversibly and powerfully changed in the moment, and yet with hindsight, it all just seems like more pathway, more unfolding. It's hard for me to find huge significance in any one thing, so I guess the way I interact reflects that, Sure, it's because you have your own way of experiencing and making sense of that which associates with that. Just coz a guru type coins a word like consciousness doesn't make it a conceptual truth lol or better still something that is realised that reflects upon everything that is. I don't hold any absolutes to be true. I talk about beliefs because I have a shit load of them. It doesn't bother me one bit.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2024 15:26:40 GMT -5
.. 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. But another way to look at it is that toe stubbing can just happen dude. Ain't nothin' personal 'bout it. I said it happens, but you have to associate the belief that it happens to you and not me. Funnily enough I injured my toe through running this week and I was limping for two days. If I didn't believe it happened to me I would of continued running and created a worser injury. You can't just go through life disassociating stuff like this. It does have an impact on the individual self. Set fire to your clothes while you're wearing them. See how depersonalising and dissociating that from self does for you. (not recommended)
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 13, 2024 15:31:03 GMT -5
Everybody has to form a cultural self, as stated before, it's our link to the world (as stated before, if you don't form a cultural self, you are basically autistic, cut-off, to one extent or another). The ideal would be for the cultural self to be formed with not-so-tight a grip. So that way essence is very close underneath the cultural self. This is generally how-it-is with people who begin the spiritual journey. The ideal is to once again live through one's essence, this is like becoming like a little child. Jesus understood the whole journey, from the inside out. The ideal is to not have the wounds. The wounds cause a very dense and hard-shell cultural self. Blatant child abuse, hitting, by a parent, is the worst. The most crucial period is from birth to about age six. The language of a baby and a small child, is attention. You can't give a baby too much attention. Joseph Chilton Pearce in Magical Child has a very good explanation of how-things-should-be. At first, the Mother (or primary caregiver) is the matrix for the baby. As baby gets older, it's matrix expands, Father gets included. Then childhood friends...then society...eventually the whole universe becomes the matrix. This is the best case scenario. Most people get stuck somewhere on the way, a lesser matrix, they get stuck in. For some very nasty dudes, ISIS became their matrix. Some, Hamas. For pure individuation, the universe becomes your matrix. Yeah understand and pretty much agree. But that's why I have invited the scenario of a 'pure world', in which there's no cultural (false self). I'm really just trying to understand what it means to you, for an individual to be 'pure essence'. And the simplest way of finding that out, is for me to ask you to consider a hypothetical 'pure world'. Bashar often talks about his world, if you believe in channelings of that sort. This is Darryl talking here. Bashar here Beelzebub's Tales is a very interesting book. Basically, in the whole of the Megalocosmos, everything went pretty-much according to plan, nature's plan, the whole plan, the intended plan. Except on Earth. There's a series of angels and Archangels and saints who keep things on the right track. On earth something unexpected occurred just as man was beginning to evolve to a point of *humanness*, a true 3 brained being (as opposed to 1 and 2 brained beings, IOW, animals). So our ray of creation was in crisis. So the Archangels had to figure out a plan to 'get things back on track'. So man's development had to be thwarted, to get things on track. The Archangels were afraid mankind would commit mass suicide, if they knew things as they actually were, so Archangels implanted a special organ in the physical body so that mankind could not be able to see things as-they-are, but topsy-turvy, upside-down as it were. Everything got back on track, back to normal, so the Archangels removed the special organ from the bodies of mankind, that is, they removed the passing-on-of-the-DNA of the special organ, too. But there were unforeseen consequences, the first occasion of the law of unintended consequences (sdp just added that last part). Now, Richard Dawkins invented the word meme (and memes) some 30 years ago (1976 in the book The Selfish Gene). The word has become degraded from his intended meaning. A meme is just information which is transmitted conceptually, all words are in a sense memes. But Gurdjieff essentially invented the concept, a meme, in 1924, the beginning of Beelzebub's Tales. He had had a near fatal motorcar accident, and recovering he decided to take on the, for him, artificial life as an author. He could not yet write, so he dictated to Madame de Hartmann, "It was in the year 223 after the creation of the world, by objective time-calculation, or, as it would be said here on "Earth," in the year 1921 after the birth of Christ". ...page 51 The unforeseen consequences were that even though the special-temporary-organ was removed, the memes were passed on from parent to child, from person to person, from culture to culture. of course Gurdjieff did not use that word, but that was essentially the meaning of "the unintended consequences of the organ Kundabuffer". So mankind, on Earth, has had to deal with the consequences of the organ Kundabuffer since the beginning of mankind, unlike elsewhere in the whole Megalocosmos where things proceed quite normally according to plan. The organ Kundabuffer caused mankind to see things through imagination, things-not-as-they-are. The Archangels didn't foresee the consequences would remain even after the physical organ was removed. Of course Beelzebub's Tales is a modern myth, but in it is hidden the full and complete conceptual structure of Gurdjieff's teaching, a map as it were, a model. I should say All and Everything includes the teaching, Beelzebub's Tales is book one of three. The inner teaching is never written down, it's an oral tradition. I will watch your two Bashar/Darryl videos, sounds very interesting. (By the way, there are at least 15 different ways to spell Darryl).
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2024 15:36:54 GMT -5
.. You're changing context here. There's a difference between changing existential context deliberately and purposely, vs. unconsciously and in confusion. It's important to be able to differentiate between the two different scenarios. For sure, but changing context is changing context. I have been speaking of beliefs that are part of understanding what realisations refer too. Realisations that are as you put it existential beliefs or knowings that can't be explained. Stubbing your toe doesn't relate to what I have been talking about. Z.D. can say what he say's deliberately or not, out of confusion or not. I am not bothered to be honest, I just had to say that what was given as an example wasn't in the same context as what I was speaking of.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 13, 2024 15:38:11 GMT -5
No, that us not the definition of "belief". That is the definition of remembrance/recall. Beliefs are things held to be true without evidence or direct experience. Recollections are stories told about actual events or realizations after the fact. Big difference. The problem with any definition of belief is that the mind makes a ham sandwich out of it. I don’t believe that would ever happen with my kosher friends.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2024 15:40:52 GMT -5
The belief is present in order for you to even mention your conceptual understanding of what even space means. No, that us not the definition of "belief". That is the definition of remembrance/recall. Beliefs are things held to be true without evidence or direct experience. Recollections are stories told about actual events or realizations after the fact. Big difference. Take you pick of many definitions. The thing is that you haven't realised what 'space is or means' non conceptually, so you have a belief in what it means to you and is true for you. That is why peeps that have so called realisations can then refer to that as reflecting what they believe to be conceptually true. Again, you just nit pick at my post and don't really answer anything I ask of you. Why is that?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 13, 2024 15:44:16 GMT -5
There's a difference between changing existential context deliberately and purposely, vs. unconsciously and in confusion. It's important to be able to differentiate between the two different scenarios. For sure, but changing context is changing context. I have been speaking of beliefs that are part of understanding what realisations refer too. Realisations that are as you put it existential beliefs or knowings that can't be explained. Stubbing your toe doesn't relate to what I have been talking about. Z.D. can say what he say's deliberately or not, out of confusion or not. I am not bothered to be honest, I just had to say that what was given as an example wasn't in the same context as what I was speaking of. Tenka, I promise you, you have to throw out the words belief and beliefs with the ND people discussion. A Realization is not in any sense a belief.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2024 15:44:51 GMT -5
.. 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. " "what stubs their toe?" And you have an interest in arguing about this that recurs, seemingly, indefinitely. .. What you are within individuated experience does. If you have a 100% knowing of what you are that isn't a belief, then you tell me what stubs their toe. I don't have a conceptual term for what we are that is individuated that is 100% known to be true. I don't have to know, to know that I have stubbed my toe and believe it to be the case.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 13, 2024 15:45:18 GMT -5
No, that us not the definition of "belief". That is the definition of remembrance/recall. Beliefs are things held to be true without evidence or direct experience. Recollections are stories told about actual events or realizations after the fact. Big difference. Take you pick of many definitions. The thing is that you haven't realised what 'space is or means' non conceptually, so you have a belief in what it means to you and is true for you. That is why peeps that have so called realisations can then refer to that as reflecting what they believe to be conceptually true. Again, you just nit pick at my post and don't really answer anything I ask of you. Why is that? Ditto (to above).
|
|