Know Thyself?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

TickTockMan
 
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 11:52 am
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;99140 wrote:
TT Man,

The traveling through the tunnel and entering into a vivid landscape, that you did, may very well have been a recollection of your birth changed ever so slightly because of your trancing.


Not necessarily. I was following guidelines in Harner's book that taught the student to visualize traveling through a tunnel. This is a generally accepted method of a "spirit journey" among Shamanic cultures, and is well documented by anthropologists who have studied such things.

Subjectivity9;99140 wrote:
I believe that existentialism is quite a good philosophy, as far as it goes. But, it is a rather hopeless and depressing one. Perhaps this is because it defines only too well the feeling of being trapped in the small human life (prison) with a mind that is capable of (no even humgers for) freedom.


This is a common misconception about existentialism. People often say the same thing of Buddhism, that it is depressing, when actually just the opposite is the case, I think.

I'm by no means a scholar of existentialism (or much of anything, really) but this clip from the movie Waking Life which I saw a number of years ago changed my ideas about what I thought existentialism meant.

YouTube - Waking Life - Robert C. Solomon
 
manfred
 
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 12:34 pm
@TickTockMan,
This is taking responsibility for your own actions,right?
No one else to blame but yourself because you know life is what you make it,right?Well i dont understand the difference between existentialism and an agnostic point of view,aren't they both based on the same basic principals,or have i just completely missed the point?
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 04:23 pm
@richrf,
TT Man,

Did you ever question why and get and answer to the why of them visualizing traveling through a tunnel?

There are actually 2 tunnels that happen to all of us, (1) the is the birth tunnel, and (2) there is the tunnel that people, who experience Near Death Experiences, tell us about with the light at the end of the tunnel. Do you think that has anything to do with this practice?

I don’t see that my personal experience with Existentialism comes under the heading of a misconception, as it was a personal reaction to my extensive reading in that area. This was some years back.

I esp. found Sartre a real downer, although quite brilliant.

I really liked Camus, and thought that he was the brightest of the lot.

I read everything that Dostoyevsky ever wrote. Most people say he was an existentialist, although not really a philosopher proper.

Most people misunderstand Buddhism.

Buddhism ends in complete freedom, whereas existentialism ends in slavery and disappointment IMO. Tell me why I am wrong, if you will.

I’m going to read a bit on Robert C. Solomon, so we can have an intelligent conversation. I was not familiar with him.

Why don’t you tell me a few things that he said, that proved pivotal in your life, for starters?

Thanx

S9
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 06:16 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;99319 wrote:
TT Man,

Did you ever question why and get and answer to the why of them visualizing traveling through a tunnel?

There are actually 2 tunnels that happen to all of us, (1) the is the birth tunnel, and (2) there is the tunnel that people, who experience Near Death Experiences, tell us about with the light at the end of the tunnel. Do you think that has anything to do with this practice?


It is very possible. Traditional Shamanism deals with three worlds, basically. An upper world, a middle world, and a lower world.

The lower world is where, it is said, that the Shaman travels to communicate with, find for himself, or recover for someone else, a spirit guide, or power animal.

Usually, the shaman enters the trance state with the assistance of drumming and visualizes himself or herself traveling downward through a cave-like tunnel, or even through the roots of a tree. "Urban Shamans" have even reported visualizing themselves traveling down through a system of drains to reach the lower world. As for myself, I preferred imaging traveling down through something more like a gopher hole that eventually opened up on the side of a cliff, and overlooked a vast valley, complete with forests and jungles and mountain ranges in the distance.

Eventually, I was able to create quite a detailed landscape in my head that would remain largely the same on subsequent "visits." It was here that I encountered the frog imagery I mentioned earlier. Initially it was in the form of a carved marble frog that was part of an elaborate fountain, but eventually it began to show up as a companion on later explorations in my imaginary landscape.

I always enjoyed these little journeys, but I never did manage to convince myself that they had any real validity, other than as a form of relaxing meditation. For me, the paranormal (which I realize is a very large blanket statement) just never rang quite true . . . I always felt like it was somehow separating me from the grabbing a chunk of life in my teeth and really experiencing it as a blood and guts here and now.

I think that's why I really enjoy the bloody noses and cracked ribs that come with the style of martial arts that I've been a student of for the past 11-12 years. To me, it is a raw and direct experience of life and a meditation of the physicality of now. Does that make sense?

Subjectivity9;99319 wrote:
I don't see that my personal experience with Existentialism comes under the heading of a misconception, as it was a personal reaction to my extensive reading in that area. This was some years back.


Sorry, I meant no affront. I always had the misconception that Existentialism was a philosophy of despair.



Subjectivity9;99319 wrote:
Buddhism ends in complete freedom, whereas existentialism ends in slavery and disappointment IMO. Tell me why I am wrong, if you will.


Alas, I can't give you a definitive answer on this, as I'm still in the learning stage. At this point, I don't see this to be the case, regarding Existentialism. As far as Buddhism goes, I believe you are on the mark. The basic tenants of Buddhism (i.e the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path) have always made sense to me, assuming I am understanding them correctly, which is never certain.

Subjectivity9;99319 wrote:
I'm going to read a bit on Robert C. Solomon, so we can have an intelligent conversation. I was not familiar with him.

Why don't you tell me a few things that he said, that proved pivotal in your life, for starters?


I didn't mean to imply that anything in particular that he said was what I would call pivotal in my life. I merely noted that this particular clip made me reconsider my previous belief that Existentialism was a gloomy philosophy.

I was recently loaned a CD lecture series that he gave for The Teaching Company, No Excuses Existentialism and the Meaning of Life, but I haven't had time to begin them yet.

Regards,
TTM
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 07:37 am
@richrf,
TT Man,

I learned recently that the common denominator between Existentialism and Buddhism is Phenomenology. (Phenomenology pursued to its climax will bring you right into knowing “Thyself.”

Do you have anything to say to that?

Also we have to consider that all Existentialisms aren’t created equal. Kierkegaard was able to go beyond the more earth bound forms of Existentialism.

I have often wondered if the ‘Spirit Guide’ wasn’t simply a personification of a natural development in our minds, that of being able to listen closely to our own intuitional self. This would be very similar to how the ancient Greeks had gods and goddesses the personified portions of the human psyche. (This might also call in our right brain to aid us in not only understanding our selves, but also to our becoming more personally whole/complete.

Some of your sharman practices correspond closely with what some Tibetans do

Years ago I had a Guru who said, when meditating you can go in two directions. One direction is into trance states, which are similar to sleep. The other direction is into having more and more clarity or wakefulness.



TT: I think that's why I really enjoy the bloody noses and cracked ribs that come with the style of martial arts that I've been a student of for the past 11-12 years. To me, it is a raw and direct experience of life and a meditation of the physicality of now. Does that make sense?

S9: Yes, it does. I also believe that direct experience comes in other forms, although the physical may be the easiest, and least subtle. This need of direct experience is the very bedrock of Transcendent Mysticism. It is not a dream/trance state.

I don’t believe that I could find Existentialism depressing now, because I know that I am not trapped in this body/mind as my only real identity. This is a little like knowing that God won’t punish me in hell. They are just ideas and like the mere idea of fire cannot burn you, the idea of monsters cannot chase you.

TT: Alas, I can't give you a definitive answer on this, as I'm still in the learning stage.

S9: I do not want your definitive answers, but rather your stumbling/bumbling answers if that is where you are at right now. Jump right in. The waters fine. We must always be ready/willing to make a fool of our selves if that is what it takes to keep moving and learning. Every mistake is a blessing in disguise, because it questions and reveals, instead of hides.

I had a spiritual friend that for some reason (maybe my good luck) was aways that little bit ahead of me. I often found myself between two needs, (1) the need to Know and therefore admitting that I didn't know, and (2) disguising what I didn't know, looking clever, in order to win his respect. Thank heaven my need to Know was the strongest.

: ^ )

TT: I was recently loaned a CD lecture series that he gave for The Teaching Company, No Excuses Existentialism and the Meaning of Life, but I haven't had time to begin them yet.

S9: Maybe you can be a good friend and share what you learn as you learn it. We can grab what you learn in our mutual teeth, and chew out all of the goodness to be had.

Regards,
S9
_______________
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 05:13 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;99422 wrote:
TT Man,

I learned recently that the common denominator between Existentialism and Buddhism is Phenomenology. (Phenomenology pursued to its climax will bring you right into knowing "Thyself."

Do you have anything to say to that?

Also we have to consider that all Existentialisms aren't created equal. Kierkegaard was able to go beyond the more earth bound forms of Existentialism.



Howdy, S9,

I wouldn't argue the idea that there is a relation between Existentialism and Buddhism, and that there are likely elements of Phenomenology involved. I've never really looked at it (the Phenomenological aspect) this way, but now that you've brought it up, I imagine I'll be giving it some further exploration. I suppose that aspects of this commonality would be fairly dynamic given the range of Existentialist thought and differing schools of Buddhism.

Phenomenology, as I understand it (again, I'm working from a tiny base of knowledge here, without a safety net) has to do with the attempt to bring subjective, "all in the mind", experience into a more objective arena. As I understand it, Phenomenology arose as a response to Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" claim, which some philosophers argue leaves one trapped inside one's own head.

Perhaps the principle of Intentionality (which I understand to be an aspect of Phenomenology) might be even more relative in such an exploration? What do you think?

Not all Existentialists are Phenomenologists, and vice-versa, but what little I have read on the matter indicates that both schools of thought tend to accept the principle of Intentionality, or that consciousness intends, or directs itself, toward something other, or outside, of consciousness. I further take this to mean that even when consciousness is directed toward itself (or inward), it is attempting to perceive itself as some form of "other." Would you consider this an aspect of Buddhist "Mindfulness" practice? Or am I talking gibberish?

Given my understanding that Existentialism recognizes Intentionality, or the desire to find a place for the physical self and one's conscious perception of the physical world, I am still confused as to why you would interpret Existentialism as a philosophy of being "trapped" in one's mind/body. It would seem to me that the evolution of Existentialism away from the Cartesian view of the mind/self has unlocked those particular shackles and freed the mind/body into the realm of ultimate personal freedom and unflinching self-responsibility.

By no means am I saying you are wrong, but our thoughts on this certainly seem to be at odds.
You've obviously done far more reading along these lines than I have though, so I'm very open to hearing more.

For now, I'm going to have to sign off, odds are until Monday.

Sorry I didn't address all of your comments, but this particular angle (Buddhism/Existentialism/Phenomenology/Intentionality) struck me as the most interesting and possibly fruitful, although this:

Subjectivity9;99422 wrote:
I have often wondered if the 'Spirit Guide' wasn't simply a personification of a natural development in our minds, that of being able to listen closely to our own intuitional self. This would be very similar to how the ancient Greeks had gods and goddesses the personified portions of the human psyche. (This might also call in our right brain to aid us in not only understanding our selves, but also to our becoming more personally whole/complete.
is also intriguing, and, in my estimation, reasonable and likely to be accurate. Have you read anything about the theory of Bicameralism?

I've been trying to work on this reply in bits and pieces throughout the day while I'm at work, and looking back over what I've written, it seems a bit disjointed and perhaps not logically coherent.

You've given me a number of interesting things to think about over the weekend.

Thanks . . . as if my head wasn't crowded enough, and the needle on my philosophical compass wasn't swinging wildly enough as it is!

Enjoy the weekend,
TTM
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 12:15 pm
@richrf,
TT Man,

I went up and Googled Phenomenology and it is a vast subject. Although it looks to be very interesting, it isn’t going to be something that I can accomplish over night. But I do promise to share anything that strikes me as being particularly interesting.

I did go and read about Solomon too. So far what he has said seems to be skimming more along the surface than my tastes run.

I would like to get down into the bare bones of how Existentialism and Buddhism study the finite world (more the world of thought and emotion) seeing just how far both of these can travel together towards a final realization of Self and Truth in the Ultimate sense. I am almost sure that at some point Existentialism will fall behind. But, lets examine this together.

I have high hopes that Phenomenology will prove itself a better and far reaching partner for Buddhism. But again that remains to be seen. I am excited about the possibilities that Phenomenology holds forth to us.

In speaking with my friend on the fact of Phenomenology’s dynamism, just recently, we decided that it was rather more like the physiology of the body than the anatomy, in that it was a process of knowing rather that a diagram or a map of a material event. It would be in the doing of Phenomenology that we would move along into wisdom. In other words Phenomenology would be lived, rather than examined like an object.

So yes, Phenomenology is all about experience and how we perceive everything. We are not so much looking at any one material object, but rather looking directly at our own self, our own perception. What is this perceiving that seems to be going on? Examining it, by being it.

I think we will be leaving Descartes in the dust, as perceiving precedes thought. In other words, I am not because I think, but before thought even arrives, and not because of thought. I am able to stand back and watch thought but arrive and dissolve once again. Who is this perceiver?

Lin Chi, “Look, Look.”

I did run into internationality being mentioned a number of times in correspondence to Phenomenology. But we might, in the near future, be asking the question much like Alan Watts would, “Who intends to intend?” We are looking for the very root of this tree.

When we have something directing consciousness, we are already in the mind. I am wondering about perception previous to action. Thoughts of direction are a subtle form of action.

I hold to the idea that ‘Intrinsic Knowledge’ of our very ‘Self’ does not require directing consciousness towards it, as it is not outside of us. It is dead center. Any direction in this case would need to be traveling away from it/center.

Mindfulness, as it is commonly practiced these days is mostly concerned with our finite conditions of thought and emotion. Most Tibetan Buddhism, the way that it is practiced in this country, is a very good psychology. This is not to say that if anything is practiced to it very extreme, it couldn’t bring you eventually beyond its self.

“I am all ears.” Teach me what is so good about Existentialism, as you see it. Like I say, it has been years since I have read any Existentialism. Is it a kind of Novo-Existentialism that you are speaking about? (Something more recent?)

I have to tell you that I have a little trouble with thinking about what my responsibility is, when I haven’t settled some other more important/foundational issues first. Who am I? Where am I? What the (blue blazes) am I doing here? Only after a have a few of these answered, would I feel comfortable moving on to what is responsibility, and what part of that is mine?

I am not familiar with Bicameralism. Would you tell me a bit about it, please? I have way too much on my plate, right now, to go off looking for it,also. But I wouldn’t mind chewing on it with you, on this thread, with you taking the lead, if that would please you.

Thank you for your efforts in sending me this nice long reply, when you were obviously busy. I enjoyed it very much.

And:

I am sorry if I have your compass needle swinging wildly. Welcome to my world. ; ^ )

I am not always as organized as I should be, duh, papers and books scattered about. I am more of an idea person and somewhat creative.

Sometimes my friends come to me and explain a problem to me, even though they know I don’t know “dit tilly squat" about that particular subject or tool, because I will come up with something new and innovative, and that is what they need right then, a new direction.

S9
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 05:39 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;99735 wrote:


I have to tell you that I have a little trouble with thinking about what my responsibility is, when I haven't settled some other more important/foundational issues first. Who am I? Where am I? What the (blue blazes) am I doing here? Only after a have a few of these answered, would I feel comfortable moving on to what is responsibility, and what part of that is mine?

S9


An interesting (to me, anyway) aspect which I have read regarding Existentialism is that "existence precedes essence."

I wonder if you are taking too broad of a definition of what is meant by responsibility?
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Tue 27 Oct, 2009 07:26 am
@richrf,
TT Man,

The statement that “Existence precedes essence,” adds no knowledge to our coffers, in my way of seeing it. It is just a changing of words to describe the very same dynamic.

For instance, what is existence, and how does it come about? In this statement, does existence actually mean essence in that it is the originator? If not, than what is the originator of this dynamic we recognize as life? Is it the material body? Is it more like what the Buddhists call, “co-dependent arising?” In other words, is existence the Gestalt of both the subject and the object coming together, and purely dependent upon each other to be (exist) at all?

“These are the times/questions that try men’s soul.” ; ^ )

Then there is essence. What does that mean in any practical or usable sense?

Lastly, what is responsibility in your way of seeing it? Are you simply using the word "responsible" to mean it caused something? You must see that responsible, the word carries a lot of baggage with it. It speaks of being in charge of what comes about. Are we?

S9
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Tue 27 Oct, 2009 12:20 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;100073 wrote:
TT Man,

The statement that "Existence precedes essence," adds no knowledge to our coffers, in my way of seeing it. It is just a changing of words to describe the very same dynamic.


Would you deny that you had to be here to become who you are?

Subjectivity9;100073 wrote:
For instance, what is existence, and how does it come about? In this statement, does existence actually mean essence in that it is the originator?


I'm confused by your syntax. Are you saying here that essence is the originator or vice-versa?

As for "what is existence" can we say (at the risk of using a double negative) that it is a state of "not nothing"? That is, it is a state (of being) that can be physically corroborated.

Subjectivity9;100073 wrote:
Then there is essence. What does that mean in any practical or usable sense?


I would take essence to just be a fancy term to describe the non-physical aspects of your being, for example your sense of humor, your beliefs, the manner in which you think about things, etc. So in that sense, your essence, or who you are is useful and practical in the sense that it is what allows you to keep on truckin', or, conversely, to not.

Subjectivity9;100073 wrote:
Lastly, what is responsibility in your way of seeing it? Are you simply using the word "responsible" to mean it caused something? You must see that responsible, the word carries a lot of baggage with it. It speaks of being in charge of what comes about. Are we?
S9


Yes, the word does carry a lot of baggage. By responsibility, I mean in the sense that we must be willing to accept the consequences of our actions without making excuses for our decisions that led to certain results.
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Tue 27 Oct, 2009 04:46 pm
@richrf,
TT Man,

What I am saying is, that first there is an "originator" (original cause) of some kind. But to call it "existence" doesn’t really tell us anything at/all. So if I was to call it “essence” instead of your word “existence,” we still don’t know anything more than your particular preference for one word (existence), and my preference for another word (essence). What we really want to understand, get a handle on, is the dynamic behind this word choice. Does that make sense?

So the “originator” (Root cause), which you call “existence” is now calling its self “Being.” (Another word that is little understood.)

“Physical corroboration,” doesn’t work for me, because this physical manifestation could be a dream physical. If I pinched this dream body to see if I was dreaming, I just bet that I would dream that it would (dream) hurt. Don’t you?

Let us not fall into the assumptions of a materialist.

Many people use the word “essence” to mean what is at the very root of our self. So that essence would not come up after the demonstration of the material objects, but previous to them. Essence would more likely be something like ‘the awareness,’ which made perception possible to begin with.

Whereas humor, beliefs, would simply be different flavors added after actual "Awareness." Awareness would be foundational, and humor or beliefs would be simply trimming.

What choice do we have but to accept the consequences of action? But are we really in charge of these (so called) “our actions,” or do these actions simply flow through us? (Hard Determinism) Perhaps, we must also learn to accept “our actions,” like we do the weather.

“Making excuses,” would be just one more action flowing through us. Although, perhaps, this dream is self-correcting? Who knows?

I think one of man’s favorite ideas must be that some how he is in charge, and not simply a spectator in his own life. Perhaps this wish is based upon another assumption, that he is this subject of this life walking around in this dream, and without choice he would feel the victim.

But why take any of this on, without proof?

S9
 
vajrasattva
 
Reply Tue 27 Oct, 2009 05:11 pm
@richrf,
I as a buddhist have honestly found that their is no self to be found. All I have are atributes of experience, likes and dislikes, and personal tendencys. I am a collection of aggregates. But underneath all of that I am nothing more than a name and a body, and as a name and a body I am one in mind and body with all that is. All form is but form, and all mind is but mind. I am my experience and my experince is impermanant and transient. For example today I am a buddhist later on I may be a hindu or a christian. I like walking tomorrow I may not have legs. etc. I am not my mind, my body, my name or my propensities. I am much more and so much less than all of that. And it is this knowledge that allows me to be myself and look at myself objectivly and honestly and truely come to know that which I am.


I am = YHWH = Jehovah... GOD... hmmm makes you think dont it.
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Tue 27 Oct, 2009 05:46 pm
@vajrasattva,
vajrasattva;100215 wrote:
I as a buddhist have honestly found that their is no self to be found. All I have are atributes of experience, likes and dislikes, and personal tendencys. I am a collection of aggregates. But underneath all of that I am nothing more than a name and a body, and as a name and a body I am one in mind and body with all that is. All form is but form, and all mind is but mind. I am my experience and my experince is impermanant and transient. For example today I am a buddhist later on I may be a hindu or a christian. I like walking tomorrow I may not have legs. etc. I am not my mind, my body, my name or my propensities. I am much more and so much less than all of that. And it is this knowledge that allows me to be myself and look at myself objectivly and honestly and truely come to know that which I am.


I am = YHWH = Jehovah... GOD... hmmm makes you think dont it.


No, but it makes me wonder what surface you are pasting all these I AM stickers onto if there is no self.
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Tue 27 Oct, 2009 06:33 pm
@richrf,
vajrasattva,

Reading what you have written here, makes me think of something that one of my Gurus said a long time ago. That some people have two identities without realizing it, and they stand with one foot in each one of them. This is of course confusing, and yet at the same time they do not question this.

I also believe that most people (even Buddhists) misunderstand the “Anatma Doctrine,” or “no self.” I believe that Gautama Buddha was speaking of the lack of self within the dream of finitude, (finitude being impermanent and therefore containing nothing eternal), this ego self which we usually identify with comes up and goes down continually, and so could not be considered our ‘Essential Eternal Self,’ which transcends the finite completely.

But, I do congratulate you, if you have looked deeply enough into finitude to find that it is empty. This is certainly a first, big step.

I don’t however think that we should discount “experience” altogether. Because it is an “intuitional experience,” (for want of better words), that will finally reveal to us our own Essential Self (AKA the I Am of Awareness), which is beyond all doubt.

When you say that “I am much more and so much less than all of that,” I have to wonder how much of this is your own discovery and how much of it is borrowed words? Because some of what you have said before, directly contradicts this last.

If you are looking at yourself objectively, then the self that you are looking at is what the Buddha had called a “mind object.” So I must ask you this. “Who is looking?” Find the answer to this, and like the Buddha, you too will be “Awake.”

Now I fully understand that I may have completely misunderstood your original message, because of the difficulty of saying these things, so please bare with me and explain further for both our sakes.

Regards,
S9
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 10:56 am
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;100209 wrote:

"Physical corroboration," doesn't work for me, because this physical manifestation could be a dream physical. If I pinched this dream body to see if I was dreaming, I just bet that I would dream that it would (dream) hurt. Don't you?


Are you unable to tell the difference between when you are asleep and dreaming, and when you are awake? I can. I can't, however, always tell when I am asleep and dreaming while I am asleep, but when I am awake I always know it . . . although there have been bad moments when I have been awake that I wished I was only experiencing a dream.
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 01:43 pm
@richrf,
TT Man

Actually, what I am saying here is that, similar to the fact that you don’t always know when you are dreaming at night, while that particular dream is going on, there are many persons who equally don’t know that they are now in what is often called ‘the waking dream', which we call life.

They have no idea b/4 “Waking Up” (Enlightenment) that this life is also a dream state. (Our nightly dreams are only dreams within a dream.)

It is a bit like being at the bottom of the ocean and slowly rising up through stages. Deep sleep is the very lowest stage,(almost completely oblivious), next we rise up into REM, and next we come up into waking life, and lastly we 'Wake up" completely or are Enlightened. The first 3 stages of consciousness are in the water (of the ocean) the last, Enlightenment rises above the water not touching it, free of it, transcendent.

Early in the morning when first waking up, very often we are in a theta wave, which keeps us slipping back and forth from waking into sleep and back into waking once again. In this state, we are just beginning to wake up and yet lured equally back into sleep.

Later still, when we are a bit more awake, we will continue trying to cure a part of the dream that had been plaguing us earlier. This is similar to when we are just starting to get insights into Enlightenment and yet we still are feeling loyal to the dream, or like we must save the world and all of her inhabitants. This is the Bodhisattva stage.

Ramana once said, “It makes no sense when waking up from a dream to say, “I will not wake up until everyone in my dream wakes up too.”

With the use of this like map on progress, you can easily see the confusion that poor mind so easily falls into.

S9
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 03:39 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;100375 wrote:
TT Man

Actually, what I am saying here is that, similar to the fact that you don't always know when you are dreaming at night, while that particular dream is going on, there are many persons who equally don't know that they are now in what is often called 'the waking dream', which we call life.


But what about when I do know I am dreaming? On occasion, I've had success with lucid dreaming, and have been able to direct my dreams. But I've never mistaken it for anything other than what it is.

Why would I want to call what I am experiencing now a "waking dream?" By that I mean, what would be the purpose of imagining such a thing?
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 04:35 pm
@richrf,
TT Man,

In a lucid dream you can direct it, you might even fly, but you still identify with this dream person who you think you are. You call the subjective dreamer “me.” This subjective dreamer is the very same identity that you carry with you into your waking (dream) life. You are 100% loyal to this ego personality.

Your primary mistake is this “wrongful identification” (Buddhist) with this foundational identity with this dream self that travels from nightly dreaming into your daily dreaming, on which everything else rest, and borrows its reality, and even builds up from. All of this without ever actually questioned this false self. You take your ego self as a given. Hell, you even love it.


When you say, “Why would I want to call what I am experiencing now a "waking dream?", what you are actually saying is, “If this is not the truth that I believe in, I don’t care enough about the truth to question any further.” This is in its self is an admission to a sleep state of sorts, because a mind that has stopped questioning everything, and only wants to prove his favorite story to himself, is somnambulant. It is saying that you are content, even if it is an illusion.

A lazy mind only contributes to an illusory life. I have never asked you to imagine anything. I have only asked you to investigate for yourself. What are you afraid of?

S9
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 05:11 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;100404 wrote:


When you say, "Why would I want to call what I am experiencing now a "waking dream?", what you are actually saying is, "If this is not the truth that I believe in, I don't care enough about the truth to question any further."


No, what I am actually saying is, Why would I want to call what I am experiencing now a "waking dream?"
Which I hoped would be interpreted as,
By that I mean, what would be the purpose of imagining such a thing?
Which is why I put that particular statement in my response as a follow-up to my first question. I wanted to be very clear what I was asking. You have not given me an answer to either question.

Subjectivity9;100404 wrote:
This is in its self is an admission to a sleep state of sorts, because a mind that has stopped questioning everything, and only wants to prove his favorite story to himself, is somnambulant. It is saying that you are content, even if it is an illusion.


No, it's not an admission of anything of the sort. My question of, "why would I want to call what I am experiencing now a waking dream" does not contain a judgement one way or the other. It is like asking why I would want to choose Ford over Chevrolet. Both might be equally acceptable as far as their function (to get me from point A to point B), but I can't have both. What would be the advantage, to me, of choosing one over the other?

TTM
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 06:23 pm
@richrf,
TT Man,

You shouldn’t want to call anything by any particular name without proof. This is vital.

That is why the Zen masters so often say, ”Don’t look at my finger (AKA my words), look where I am pointing (with my words.)

This is a participator’s sport. You personally look, and you personally investigation, and then you personally discover your very Self (both Eternal, Immediate and Intimate.

All imagination takes place within the mind. What I am pointing at, Thyself, is outside of the mind, totally transcendent.

What you must do eventually is to look with what is often called “bare attention,” that is attention naked of preconception. This will reveal to you, what you need to know.

Everything we think is quite full of judgments, even if we do not know this at the time. For instance, when you pick between two cars, you have already made up your mind that one of these cars will fill your needs. This is a judgment.

When you look at what I am saying about dreams, you probably think "I am not dreaming," or "S9 is wrong." Or you think, "I am staying right where I am until S9 gives me a good reason to change." These are all judgments.

This is not really being totally receptive to a new idea, is it? Even if you think that I am absolutely right, you have some idea about me giving the truth to you, which incidentally is impossible. We all must find this, sooner or later, within our own self.

Since what I am speaking of here, Self, is impossible to actually put into words, all that we can hope for is an insight of sorts and your own sudden noticing the your Self.

Words can sometime bring us to this point, where we are face to face with Self, but they cannot accompany us over too the other side.

Funny thing though, when you finally do Realize, you will understand that you have been looking at your Self all of your life, every single second, and yet you never realized what you were looking at.

Namaste,
S9
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/21/2020 at 03:30:45