|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 20, 2024 5:34:15 GMT -5
It seems that the "witness" described by Niz and by gopal is Seth's "inner-self", while their "all-that-is" is the "whole-self", a gestalt of "personalities". What Gopal calls the "witness" perspective is personal and local, i.e the SVP playing identity poker. Seth's "inner self" is neither. It's more like the A-H "Inner Being", i.e. the trans-personal perspective. And Seth also uses the term All That Is (without hyphens). , is there not in any sense ~individuated witnessing~? Then what pray tell is the individuation? Something is walking around, and posting on STs, after SR, what is it? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 20, 2024 6:13:35 GMT -5
What do you think practice is? Practice is witnessing. Yes. Chasing is the nature of the so-called SVP, the self-circuits. Witnessing is your true nature. But most people do not know this, do not care. Well done Gopal. This is most excellent posted by lolly one hour ago on the chasing thread, read it after posting above. If you start with deliberate intentional meditation, the ability to discern between the actuality of lived experience and the fabrications of the mind improves, and when you notice you are lost in mentality, you simply return attention to the actuality of your senses. Thus you know what is real (as you experience it) in contrast to what is false (as you imagine it). Don't become complacent with ideas about how and why as if you know answers. Just be conscious of what is, as it is, in the way it is experienced by you. You'll notice suddenly, 'hey I lost awareness of the real', and when that happens, you come back to reality automatically, but since almost all of your time is 'away', it's best to be more deliberate, intentional, persistent, and relentless. See how that works? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Edit: I just now, 5:15 PM, 8 hours later, read this from the Teachers section, Niz: Q: What is meditation and what are its uses? M: As long as you are a beginner certain formalised meditations, or prayers may be good for you. But for a seeker for reality there is only one meditation -- the rigorous refusal to harbour thoughts. To be free from thoughts is itself meditation. Q: How is it done? M: You begin by letting thoughts flow and watching them. The very observation slows down the mind till it stops altogether. Once the mind is quiet, keep it quiet. Don't get bored with peace, be in it, go deeper into it. M: Man becomes what he believes himself to be. Abandon all ideas about yourself and you will find yourself to be the pure witness, beyond all that can happen to the body or the mind. Practice is not witnessing, watching the on-going appearance is witnessing. Just know, from now on, if you see me write practice, or practicing, it means witnessing. It always has. And until you can tell me how it is done, it is, for you, merely a form of ordinary-mind watching. (Which is better than not at all). You should read lolly and listen to lolly (if you want to understand more). It's not, Oh, I just see it once, and I'm done. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Aug 20, 2024 7:09:36 GMT -5
Practice is not witnessing, watching the on-going appearance is witnessing. Just know, from now on, if you see me write practice, or practicing, it means witnessing. It always has. And until you can tell me how it is done, it is, for you, merely a form of ordinary-mind watching. (Which is better than not at all). You should read lolly and listen to lolly (if you want to understand more). It's not, Oh, I just see it once, and I'm done. ok |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Aug 20, 2024 7:15:51 GMT -5
What Niz calls the "witness" perspective is impersonal and non-local, i.e. prior to the SVP. What Gopal calls the "witness" perspective is personal and local, i.e the SVP playing identity poker. Seth's "inner self" is neither. It's more like the A-H "Inner Being", i.e. the trans-personal perspective. And Seth also uses the term All That Is (without hyphens). , is there not in any sense ~individuated witnessing~? Then what pray tell is the individuation? Something is walking around, and posting on STs, after SR, what is it? Imagine there are four windows. You look through the first, then the second, the third, and finally the fourth, taking turns. Now, suppose you could look through all four windows at the same time. What happens then? Who is the observer? Just one observer, right? How many perceptions are occurring? Four, correct? In this scenario, the observer represents what I call ‘All That Is,’ experiencing four perspectives or individualizations. Although it seems like there are four separate individuals due to the simultaneous perceptions, in reality, there is only one observer. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 20, 2024 9:44:40 GMT -5
So, is there not in any sense ~individuated witnessing~? Then what pray tell is the individuation? Something is walking around, and posting on STs, after SR, what is it? Imagine there are four windows. You look through the first, then the second, the third, and finally the fourth, taking turns. Now, suppose you could look through all four windows at the same time. What happens then? Who is the observer? Just one observer, right? How many perceptions are occurring? Four, correct? In this scenario, the observer represents what I call ‘All That Is,’ experiencing four perspectives or individualizations. Although it seems like there are four separate individuals due to the simultaneous perceptions, in reality, there is only one observer. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, that doesn't work. You have said so yourself. If there were only one observer, then Gopal would know if ~the other~, was actual or illusory. You have maintained continuously that you cannot know. And if there were only one observer, then you would know everything that I, or at least this body, knows. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Aug 20, 2024 11:12:03 GMT -5
Imagine there are four windows. You look through the first, then the second, the third, and finally the fourth, taking turns. Now, suppose you could look through all four windows at the same time. What happens then? Who is the observer? Just one observer, right? How many perceptions are occurring? Four, correct? In this scenario, the observer represents what I call ‘All That Is,’ experiencing four perspectives or individualizations. Although it seems like there are four separate individuals due to the simultaneous perceptions, in reality, there is only one observer. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, that doesn't work. You have said so yourself. If there were only one observer, then Gopal would know if ~the other~, was actual or illusory. You have maintained continuously that you cannot know. And if there were only one observer, then you would know everything that I, or at least this body, knows. Yes, I can't know whether there are other perceives. How does this contradict with what I wrote above? |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 20, 2024 16:12:12 GMT -5
It seems that the "witness" described by Niz and by gopal is Seth's "inner-self", while their "all-that-is" is the "whole-self", a gestalt of "personalities". I attempt to intuitively interpret what people said or did, and not to understand what they meant to say or do. This is why I consider more useful and constructive (to me) to read and interpret a quote out of context, than to dig into the context of that quote. For example: - “In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s there are few”
― Shunryu Suzuki, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind: Informal Talks on Zen Meditation and Practice
From context, Suzuki meant something else than what rang true, and useful to me. It doesn't matter what he meant, nor what others agreed that he meant. I noticed the same when using the Seth material search engine: link It is also true that Seth uses a multi-layered-meaning approach, to allow people at all levels of evolvement to get some useful knowledge and guidance. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 22, 2024 7:42:45 GMT -5
It seems that the "witness" described by Niz and by gopal is Seth's "inner-self", while their "all-that-is" is the "whole-self", a gestalt of "personalities". I attempt to intuitively interpret what people said or did, and not to understand what they meant to say or do. This is why I consider more useful and constructive (to me) to read and interpret a quote out of context, than to dig into the context of that quote. For example: - “In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s there are few”
― Shunryu Suzuki, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind: Informal Talks on Zen Meditation and Practice
From context, Suzuki meant something else than what rang true, and useful to me. It doesn't matter what he meant, nor what others agreed that he meant.I noticed the same when using the Seth material search engine: link It is also true that Seth uses a multi-layered-meaning approach, to allow people at all levels of evolvement to get some useful knowledge and guidance. Picture yourself in a psychologically-mirrored cube about 12' x 12'. What you are, psychologically, is reflected back to you. To you, the walls are clear glass, you think you are seeing what's outside the glass, 'the real world'. You think you are seeing things as they are, but you are not, you are seeing your own view reflected back to you. Now, see how this works within that framework? It operates the same. Now, just remove the cube entirely, it still works the same in the broader world. Why? The psychological self is its own cube. The ~walls of self~ filter out what doesn't resonate with it, the 'walls' are like a polarizing lens. Let's make up some names. The oggles have a certain world view. The boggles have a different world. The oggles can't understand how the boggles don't see the truth, the boggles can't see how the oggles don't see the truth. The truth is quite obvious, for both. Now there's a thousand different 'truths' you can plug in here. Those who have a similar world view, resonate, and band together in 'tribes'. The whole point is that it does matter 'what they meant'. We are always trying to convey something specific. Mostly, it never breaks through the other's psychological self barrier-wall-mirror. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 22, 2024 14:22:06 GMT -5
I attempt to intuitively interpret what people said or did, and not to understand what they meant to say or do. This is why I consider more useful and constructive (to me) to read and interpret a quote out of context, than to dig into the context of that quote. For example: - “In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s there are few”
― Shunryu Suzuki, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind: Informal Talks on Zen Meditation and Practice
From context, Suzuki meant something else than what rang true, and useful to me. It doesn't matter what he meant, nor what others agreed that he meant.I noticed the same when using the Seth material search engine: link It is also true that Seth uses a multi-layered-meaning approach, to allow people at all levels of evolvement to get some useful knowledge and guidance. Picture yourself in a psychologically-mirrored cube about 12' x 12'. What you are, psychologically, is reflected back to you. To you, the walls are clear glass, you think you are seeing what's outside the glass, 'the real world'. You think you are seeing things as they are, but you are not, you are seeing your own view reflected back to you. Now, see how this works within that framework? It operates the same. Now, just remove the cube entirely, it still works the same in the broader world. Why? The psychological self is its own cube. The ~walls of self~ filter out what doesn't resonate with it, the 'walls' are like a polarizing lens. Let's make up some names. The oggles have a certain world view. The boggles have a different world. The oggles can't understand how the boggles don't see the truth, the boggles can't see how the oggles don't see the truth. The truth is quite obvious, for both. Now there's a thousand different 'truths' you can plug in here. Those who have a similar world view, resonate, and band together in 'tribes'. The whole point is that it does matter 'what they meant'. We are always trying to convey something specific. Mostly, it never breaks through the other's psychological self barrier-wall-mirror. I believe that my only source of information there is, is my inner source of knowledge and guidance. There is no objective physical reality. There are only subjective realities. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 24, 2024 10:47:43 GMT -5
Picture yourself in a psychologically-mirrored cube about 12' x 12'. What you are, psychologically, is reflected back to you. To you, the walls are clear glass, you think you are seeing what's outside the glass, 'the real world'. You think you are seeing things as they are, but you are not, you are seeing your own view reflected back to you. Now, see how this works within that framework? It operates the same. Now, just remove the cube entirely, it still works the same in the broader world. Why? The psychological self is its own cube. The ~walls of self~ filter out what doesn't resonate with it, the 'walls' are like a polarizing lens. Let's make up some names. The oggles have a certain world view. The boggles have a different world. The oggles can't understand how the boggles don't see the truth, the boggles can't see how the oggles don't see the truth. The truth is quite obvious, for both. Now there's a thousand different 'truths' you can plug in here. Those who have a similar world view, resonate, and band together in 'tribes'. The whole point is that it does matter 'what they meant'. We are always trying to convey something specific. Mostly, it never breaks through the other's psychological self barrier-wall-mirror. I believe that my only source of information there is, is my inner source of knowledge and guidance. There is no objective physical reality. There are only subjective realities. Tell me there is no objective reality and then step off the top of the Empire State Building, and tell me there is no objective reality. |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Aug 24, 2024 11:04:56 GMT -5
I believe that my only source of information there is, is my inner source of knowledge and guidance. There is no objective physical reality. There are only subjective realities. Tell me there is no objective reality and then step off the top of the Empire State Building, and tell me there is no objective reality. But ND says this waking world is only a dream. When you jump off from the Empire Estate building, smashed yourself into the pavement. You will be waken into another dream, into another physical body in due course. Since you have not completely wiped off your karma from your previous life ( Sad Guru ). |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 24, 2024 12:39:23 GMT -5
I believe that my only source of information there is, is my inner source of knowledge and guidance. There is no objective physical reality. There are only subjective realities. Tell me there is no objective reality and then step off the top of the Empire State Building, and tell me there is no objective reality. Your perception of my actions will confirm your beliefs and expectations, not mine. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 25, 2024 5:51:43 GMT -5
I believe that my only source of information there is, is my inner source of knowledge and guidance. There is no objective physical reality. There are only subjective realities. Tell me there is no objective reality and then step off the top of the Empire State Building, and tell me there is no objective reality. This is common sense isn't it. It's true enough to say though that we all see things in our own subjective way based upon our self awareness in reflection of everything else. We have to have a self reference in order to be subjective and this causes a huge headache for folk who claim to be non identified because they can't actually have opinions and knowings that reflect what they refer to being the truth of the matter. It's impossible. Now regarding the so called dream or any other believed reality it doesn't matter what one thinks to be true when something happens regardless. Something like a physical lifetime ending by jumping off a cliff. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2024 6:51:42 GMT -5
Tell me there is no objective reality and then step off the top of the Empire State Building, and tell me there is no objective reality. But ND says this waking world is only a dream. When you jump off from the Empire Estate building, smashed yourself into the pavement. You will be waken into another dream, into another physical body in due course. Since you have not completely wiped off your karma from your previous life ( Sad Guru ). This debate has no end. Reality, is neither subjective nor objective, but instead, is a wonderous and beautiful dance of mystery, that yes, often brings pain. A realization is possible that puts this into perspective. In that perspective, there are no more questions. There can be empathy and compassion for those who suffer, and there is a capacity for an indescribable joy, that includes a deep pathos for the human condition.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2024 7:18:37 GMT -5
Tell me there is no objective reality and then step off the top of the Empire State Building, and tell me there is no objective reality. This is common sense isn't it. It's true enough to say though that we all see things in our own subjective way based upon our self awareness in reflection of everything else. We have to have a self reference in order to be subjective and this causes a huge headache for folk who claim to be non identified because they can't actually have opinions and knowings that reflect what they refer to being the truth of the matter. It's impossible. Now regarding the so called dream or any other believed reality it doesn't matter what one thinks to be true when something happens regardless. Something like a physical lifetime ending by jumping off a cliff. Only Neo would jump out of a plane without a parachute, and only in a movie. ~~~~~~~~~ This popped up, so I went a different way. But I was going to show the film clip from Point Break where Johnny Utah/Keanu Reeves jumps out of the plane without a parachute to catch the bad guy, his friend Bodhi/Patrick Swayze. And, will also start a separate thread, where is satch when you need him? I went back to my original plan, don't need the video in 2 places. |
|
