Know Thyself?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Zetetic11235
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 01:48 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;81015 wrote:
Of course you are the vary same person you were, even if your properties change. The photo of you when you were a child, and the photo of you when you are an adult, are photos of the very same person who calls himself, "Khethil". For instance, the photo of the child has the property of calling himself, "Khethil" when he is an adult; and the adult who has the property of calling himself, "Khethil", are one and the same person. There is no difference in properties; there is only a difference in the time each acquired the property. Change does not mark a difference in properties, only a difference in time when a property was acquired.


Technically he would be different. I suppose genetically he would be the same (of course I suppose it could be possible to alter one's genetic structure and we simply haven't discovered how yet). Either way, there are various biological factors that would change, his blood pressure, his skin, his brain would be somewhat different just by virtue of normal development since we are talking about a transition from childhood to adulthood (obviously the sexual organs and pituitary gland would be in a different state).

Nonetheless, your comment has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Of course (in the obvious sense) Khethil is a different person than he was many years ago. Experiences guide us, direct us and redirect us. Often times we find ourselves convinced of one thing because we have not considered the whole picture and so as we gain wisdom we change our minds. Sometimes we can take the same stance twice at different times in our lives for totally different reasons, holding the opposite stance in the interim. We constantly revise our outlook in light of new evidence and gained insight.

To know oneself is to be honest with oneself. If you have a flaw, you must face it to grow. If you are lucky, others will point out your flaws and you would be wise to listen and heed what they say. Consider the negative consequences of your actions and contemplate better ways of acting for next time, that is, learn from your mistakes no matter how difficult the lesson. I don't think that there is much else to say without straying off topic.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 01:56 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;90385 wrote:
Technically he would be different. I suppose genetically he would be the same (of course I suppose it could be possible to alter one's genetic structure and we simply haven't discovered how yet). Either way, there are various biological factors that would change, his blood pressure, his skin, his brain would be somewhat different just by virtue of normal development since we are talking about a transition from childhood to adulthood (obviously the sexual organs and pituitary gland would be in a different state).

Nonetheless, your comment has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Of course (in the obvious sense) Khethil is a different person than he was many years ago. Experiences guide us, direct us and redirect us. Often times we find ourselves convinced of one thing because we have not considered the whole picture and so as we gain wisdom we change our minds. Sometimes we can take the same stance twice at different times in our lives for totally different reasons, holding the opposite stance in the interim. We constantly revise our outlook in light of new evidence and gained insight.

To know oneself is to be honest with oneself. If you have a flaw, you must face it to grow. If you are lucky, others will point out your flaws and you would be wise to listen and heed what they say. Consider the negative consequences of your actions and contemplate better ways of acting for next time, that is, learn from your mistakes no matter how difficult the lesson. I don't think that there is much else to say without straying off topic.


I didn't say that there would not be differences. All I said is that Khethil (the person in the photo) and Khethil (the person posting on this forum) are one and the same individual. Why would anyone disagree with that? That doesn't mean that there are not considerable changes. Obviously there are. But, nevertheless, there is but one individual Khethil, not two (or more!). We all know that in some "sense" things persist though change. The question is how to understand how that is.
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 05:35 pm
@richrf,
Hey Kennethamy,

Here is my reasoning.

K: Could be. For all anyone knows. But have you any reasons for thinking this? It seem clear that I am the same person I was yesterday, and 20 years ago, but, of course, there have been changes.

S9: The ego story, which you are constantly writing, of course has some consistence because you are identifying with that story and you actually believe this story to be who you are. You are storing who and what you think you are in your memory and building on it.

However if you were to progress into Alzheimer’s or in some other way loss your memory of this story, you would obviously remain your ‘me’ albeit eventually naked of your story.

Now I ask you who is the ‘Me’ that is naked of story?

This ‘me’ is actually who you have been all along. But this ‘me’ being far more subtle than your stories has practically gone unnoticed but far more consistent than your thoughts.

Look at that ‘Me’ and ask yourself, “Who am I?” This is your unchanging Self. Everything else is simply accumulation of thoughts or what many have called insubstantial.

K: Things remain the same object, even when they change.

S9: Do they? Didn’t I hear somewhere that every single cell in your body changes/dies within 7 years?

K: “It is not for philosophy to deny it. Rather, philosophy should try to explain it.”

S9: We cannot explain what we do not witness. Therefore it is my understanding of philosophy that we should look vigilantly at our reality or our thoughts, and somehow figure out what it is possible to doubt. Eventually when you find that which you can not doubt, then you have more than likely stumbled on the truth. Throw everything else away.

Subjectivity9
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 06:15 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;90447 wrote:

S9: Do they? Didn't I hear somewhere that every single cell in your body changes/dies within 7 years?



Subjectivity9


I guess what that shows is that the cells of your body that you presently have are not you.

That fact that the constituent parts of something change need not mean that the something changes. The members of a football team at one time need not be the members of that team at a different time. But it is the very same team.

To infer from the premise that all the parts of X change, that X has changed is to commit the fallacy of composition.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.htm
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 05:39 am
@richrf,
Hey Kennethamy,

K: The members of a football team at one time need not be the members of that team at a different time. But it is the very same team.

S9: Yes, but, you in your ‘heart of hearts’ feel your self to be an individual entity and identify yourself as a particular individual. You are not actually seeing yourself as being a team of cells. So yes the cells can come and go, at least a few at a time, without you even noticing most of the time. In this I believe we can agree. We are not the individual cells. Something else is definitely going on.

But in the same way, can we also agree that we are not each individual thought that drifts across our mental landscape? These thoughts come up and go down/die constantly much like the cells. What then is this accumulation of thoughts, our personal thought stories, which we identify as being me? Is it not actually a salad of favorite thoughts that we have decided to hold onto within memory and call me? What is real in this?

Or is it behavior that is repeated and recognizable on which we have decided to plant our flag and call it me?

But then is it the way we see our behavior or the way that others, even strangers, see this behavior that is the correct me?

So can we agree that our behavior isn’t really me? Heaven know this behavior is changeable according to circumstance. Am I just circumstantial?

K: That fact that the constituent parts of something change need not mean that the something changes.

S9: Something changes obviously. But can we agree that what we believe to be our ‘essential me’ isn’t changing with every wind?

Yet if everything in and around you seems to be in flux, now we are young and now we are old, what is it that seems to remain throughout these changes? What can we hang onto? More importantly how do we know this? And I agree, we do in fact know this, somehow.

The problem seems to be that we have multiple ideas about our ‘me.’ Obviously some of these are in error. “Know thyself” is all about winnowing this down a bit.

Subjectivity9
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 05:43 am
@richrf,
One's self is a constant work of either progression or retreat! It is not an item of existence, it is an action within existence.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 06:59 am
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;90542 wrote:
Hey Kennethamy,

K: The members of a football team at one time need not be the members of that team at a different time. But it is the very same team.

S9: Yes, but, you in your 'heart of hearts' feel your self to be an individual entity and identify yourself as a particular individual. You are not actually seeing yourself as being a team of cells. So yes the cells can come and go, at least a few at a time, without you even noticing most of the time. In this I believe we can agree. We are not the individual cells. Something else is definitely going on.

But in the same way, can we also agree that we are not each individual thought that drifts across our mental landscape? These thoughts come up and go down/die constantly much like the cells. What then is this accumulation of thoughts, our personal thought stories, which we identify as being me? Is it not actually a salad of favorite thoughts that we have decided to hold onto within memory and call me? What is real in this?

Or is it behavior that is repeated and recognizable on which we have decided to plant our flag and call it me?

But then is it the way we see our behavior or the way that others, even strangers, see this behavior that is the correct me?

So can we agree that our behavior isn't really me? Heaven know this behavior is changeable according to circumstance. Am I just circumstantial?

K: That fact that the constituent parts of something change need not mean that the something changes.

S9: Something changes obviously. But can we agree that what we believe to be our 'essential me' isn't changing with every wind?

Yet if everything in and around you seems to be in flux, now we are young and now we are old, what is it that seems to remain throughout these changes? What can we hang onto? More importantly how do we know this? And I agree, we do in fact know this, somehow.

The problem seems to be that we have multiple ideas about our 'me.' Obviously some of these are in error. "Know thyself" is all about winnowing this down a bit.

Subjectivity9


It need not be anything mysterious that is the same between X at one time, and X at another time. I may just be something very unmysterious, like spatio-temporal continuity between X at one time, and X at another time.
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 10:57 am
@richrf,
Hey Kennethamy,


K: It need not be anything mysterious that is the same between X at one time, and X at another time. I may just be something very unmysterious, like spatio-temporal continuity between X at one time, and X at another time.

S9: I am not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination so please bare with me. I Googled this "spatiotemporal continuity" and got the impression that this was a far more materialistic explanation than a metaphysical one. Correct me if I am wrong. But are you saying that you see yourself to be a material object passing through time, end of story?

I think that you will see in reading me previously, that I am looking for a far less material answer to this same question.

Do you ever consider that there may be something else going on, beyond what our scientific instruments can tell us? Perhaps it is something more intuitional, if you will, for want of a better word.

I personally feel that I have tapped into something through insight that is continuous and unchanging, more eternal than what we usually accept as being the real. Any questions?

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 09-16-2009 at 01:18 PM ----------

Hey Pathfinder,

P: One's self is a constant work of either progression or retreat! It is not an item of existence, it is an action within existence.

S9: I can understand why you might say that the ego-self was a verb, a doing thing constantly becoming and never quite arriving. It is obviously a work in progress, with daily, no momentary revisions. But let me ask you this, as the song lyric goes “Is that all there is?”

You see I don’t find that to be the case. I guess this is where we speak about metaphysics or that which transcends time and space. The apical growth of every great religion speaks to this. We find this through introspection.

Subjectivity9
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 11:38 am
@Subjectivity9,
Isn't some of this contrary to more modern attitudes about self?
i.e. should the new mantra be 'Create thyself'?
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 05:24 pm
@richrf,
Well GoshisHead,

G: Isn't some of this contrary to more modern attitudes about self?
i.e. should the new mantra be 'Create thyself'?

S9: Is Self actually a fashion statement of some kind, as in “What is in fashion now?” Or could you say about it, “That was so yesterday?”

It seems to me that if you were looking for Truth with a capital T, a more metaphysical truth AKA an eternal truth, you would probably find that such a truth has always been around, and therefore not only would it be present right now in this immediate instant but, it also would have been around in the ancient times, ever unchanged.

Subjectivity9
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 05:52 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Quote:
It seems to me that if you were looking for Truth with a capital T, a more metaphysical truth AKA an eternal truth, you would probably find that such a truth has always been around, and therefore not only would it be present right now in this immediate instant but, it also would have been around in the ancient times, ever unchanged.


So in this case it really doesn't matter what the question or the answer is? It has always been there and will always be? All questions about self lead to the same answer? There is no such thing as change of thought, paradigm shift, alternate vocalities?

And yes it is a fashion show of sorts. Intergenerational shift in indoctrinated thought. If you want to be glib about it, it is a fashion show. a generation of thinkers change the the questions asked or how the questions are asked and the next generation takes their predecessor's innovations as the norm. The thinking fashion capital changes from England to Germany to France to wherever. Searching for Truth with a capital T is asking the right the right question for the right social environment. Given that we have a generation where the general tenets of existentialism are taken as base truth about self, saying 'know thyself' will not necessarily get you to any Truth with a capital T. However, by asking essentially the same question, or rather stating essentially the same statement, create thyself, we might get somewhere.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 06:00 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;90736 wrote:
Well GoshisHead,

G: Isn't some of this contrary to more modern attitudes about self?
i.e. should the new mantra be 'Create thyself'?

S9: Is Self actually a fashion statement of some kind, as in "What is in fashion now?" Or could you say about it, "That was so yesterday?"

It seems to me that if you were looking for Truth with a capital T, a more metaphysical truth AKA an eternal truth, you would probably find that such a truth has always been around, and therefore not only would it be present right now in this immediate instant but, it also would have been around in the ancient times, ever unchanged.

Subjectivity9


In that case, you must have an example or two of such a truth. Would you share them with us, and, of course, explain to us how you know what you believe is true (or "True") is true?
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 02:13 pm
@richrf,
Goshisdead,

G: So in this case it really doesn't matter what the question or the answer is? It has always been there and will always be?

S9: The truth with a capital T must matter at least to some of us, because we find that we are driven to know. It is not a matter of being able to manipulate this truth in such a way as to bring about something else. I for one just wanted to get rid of the feeling of being lost and without meaning.


G: All questions about self lead to the same answer?

S9: Well yes, if you are speaking of the Ultimate. The Ultimate is beyond multiplicity,


G: There is no such thing as change of thought, paradigm shift, alternate vocalities?

S9: No I did not mean to say that. We are speaking of levels here. Thought is the very land of multiplicity and therefore its very life-blood is change or becoming.

And so your statement:

Quote: “And yes it is a fashion show of sorts. Intergenerational shift in indoctrinated thought. If you want to be glib about it, it is a fashion show. A generation of thinkers change the questions asked or how the questions are asked and the next generation takes their predecessor's innovations as the norm. The thinking fashion capital changes from England to Germany to France to wherever”

…is correct within this context or level. The mind is in constant flux.



G: Searching for Truth with a capital T is asking the right question for the right social environment.

S9: But then metaphysically speaking, this would then be truth with a small t. This is both useful, and wise, not to mention adaptable.

Q: “Everything has its season.”

S9: No doubt Ecclesiastes was onto something here. That is everything under the sun has its seasons, or the natural world. But we must realize that, metaphysically speaking, the Ultimate Truth is not subject to the sun, or to time, or even to space. It is said to be beyond duality. “And you are that.”

G: Given that we have a generation where the general tenets of existentialism are taken as base truth.

S9: By who, surely by an existentialist is it not?

G: Saying 'know thyself' will not necessarily get you to any Truth with a capital T.

S9: Well yes, maybe it takes a bigger commitment than mouthing some words. But that isn’t to say that Truth with a capital T is not available.

G: However, by asking essentially the same question, or rather stating essentially the same statement, create thyself, we might get somewhere.

S9: Again, I think you mean more than simply voicing some words like an incantation, don’t you?

Let me say that I do admire the fact that you are not just accepting what others have told you thus far, and are insisting upon putting yourself in the drivers seat. This is certainly a good first step for any mystic.

If I have offended you in any way with my words, please forgive me. I am not playing at the ‘one-ups-man-ship’ game, believe me.

Subjectivity9
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 04:35 pm
@richrf,
See this is the thing Kennethamy,

This is a Truth (capital T, as in Ultimate Truth) that can be pointed at, (very Zen) and even witnessed individually on an extremely intimate level of feeling (or is it intuition? No matter). You can feel (or is it witness) your very own Being, can you not?

Furthermore, you cannot deny in good faith that you are present to yourself right here and now, and yet, it would be impossible to give an example of this to be witnessed by another outside of you. This is because we all have this very basic and essential experience of Truth or Self within a more subjective place. It is not however something that we share like cutting up a pie in individual pieces and passing these pieces around. We each experience this as All of It and All at once. We are in fact, “The Alone with the Alone.”

This feeling of surety or certainty within us is not a mental object. In fact this Self, that we are, merely allows the mental worlds to take place within It.

You can look right at Who you are, your very Eternal Self, within the immediacy of every moment and realize that this Eternal Self, your very Being, is not only unchanging but is also quite obvious once you know where to look.

Don’t take my word for this. Take the time and look for yourself.

Subjectivity9
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 06:40 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Quote:
G: All questions about self lead to the same answer?

S9: Well yes, if you are speaking of the Ultimate. The Ultimate is beyond multiplicity,


An utlimate truth must e arrived at one of two ways; everyway/anyway or one way. The infinite forks of everyway evetually lead to the one way. That means all vocalities arrive at it and we have a Hitchhiker's Guide scenario. If the answer is 42 what is the question? If it is a process of becoming then it would seem that all queries eventually lead to the Captial T. I could flippantly ask how many roads must a man walk down before the call him a man? It would eventually lead me to the capital T.

Quote:
G: Searching for Truth with a capital T is asking the right question for the right social environment.

S9: But then metaphysically speaking, this would then be truth with a small t. This is both useful, and wise, not to mention adaptable.


Given that a person is a product of their social environment it would be pointless for them to ask a question regarding capital T that they were not able to comprehend. This would make all question ones regarding lower case t. Besides if all questions lead to Captial T there is no functional distinction between capital T and lower case t. The process of becoming then becomes ask question X and it 'becomes' through whatever method the Ultimate question and the ultimate capital T, as you 'become' capable of comprehending/being capital T.

Quote:
G: Given that we have a generation where the general tenets of existentialism are taken as base truth.

S9: By who, surely by an existentialist is it not?


The social trend that has become part of the bedrock of western cutltural thought is that of self creation/actualization/ultimate non-causal free will. and this is not directly a product of existentialists, rather they are a product of it. Again as products of our cultural environment we have and act upon this framework even when we consciously know things like biological nature etc... So know thyself is contrary to the non-causal free will that we assume that we exercise, because it would as stated in many posts reveal our animal nature to ourselves. If we are not equipped to reconcile ourselves with our animal nature then a more appropriate creedo would be create thyself, as it will eventually lead to the capital T anyway.
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 05:51 pm
@richrf,
Hey GoshisDead,

G: An ultimate truth must be arrived at one of two ways; everyway/anyway or one way.

S9: Let me suggest, if I might, that Ultimate Truth may not be arrived at, at all, as in moved into. :-}

It may be discovered as Being, Here, and Now all along, and we in our very efforts to find Ultimate Truth may have been constantly traveling away from it. I don’t believe what I just said is merely semantics. In fact, this may be why some very wise fellows over the centuries have cautioned us to simply, “STOP.” In other words, they caution us to step off the path, and rather discover that you have been home all along.

G: The infinite forks of everyway eventually lead to the one way.

S9: But is this way a motion or journey when seen correctly?

G: If it is a process of becoming then it would seem that all queries eventually lead to the Capital T.

S9: That makes me think of the discovery that the world is round and therefore you can start anywhere in order to get anywhere else, even if that destination is directly behind you. But why indulge in these many journeys if you were to know you simply had to step back into it? Or as it is often said, “Take your seat.”

Of course the mind sees everything as a process, which is what becoming means. But we are not becoming Spirit or Ultimate Truth. We are already “That.” As in “You are That.”


G: Given that a person is a product of their social environment it would be pointless for them to ask a question regarding capital T that they were not able to comprehend.

S9: However you can ‘Know’ something with a capital K that is not necessarily the same kind of knowing that the mind has. The mind can only ‘know of’ the Spirit. But you on the other hand can Know Spirit by Being Spirit. Some might say it this way, “Knowing the I Am is Being the I Am and visa versa.


G: This would make all question ones regarding lower case t. Besides if all questions lead to Captial T there is no functional distinction between capital T and lower case t.

S9: Capital T Truth isn’t a function. Mind functions, or knows things through accumulation. Spirit Knows but never cuts things up and puts them back together like a jigsaw puzzle. Spirit is a state of Being.


G: The process of becoming then becomes ask question X and it 'becomes' through whatever method the Ultimate question and the ultimate capital T, as you 'become' capable of comprehending/being capital T.

S9: I get the distinct feeling that you are speaking on two levels at once, a sort of mix and match. Are you saying that we can only continue to ask small t questions until Capital T Truth makes itself known, and that it makes little difference what question we ask? Is this in your understanding a Spiritual maturation of sorts with little connection if any to what we think?


G: The social trend that has become part of the bedrock of western cultural thought is that of self creation/actualization/ultimate non-causal free will. and this is not directly a product of existentialists, rather they are a product of it.

S9: Perhaps but, the existentialists seem to stop short of the mark in my way of seeing it. It is almost a mental materialism that they participate in, if you will. They seem to think that all there is, is what one can perceive outside of oneself. Or as it has been said they cannot make “the leap of faith.” In this I do not mean that they cannot believe what they have been told AKA religion, but rather they cannot believe what their own introspection is telling them.


G: Again as products of our cultural environment we have and act upon this framework even when we consciously know things like biological nature etc... So know thyself is contrary to the non-causal free will that we assume that we exercise, because it would as stated in many posts reveal our animal nature to ourselves. If we are not equipped to reconcile ourselves with our animal nature then a more appropriate creedo would be create thyself, as it will eventually lead to the capital T anyway.

S9: Daily within our animal nature, we act ‘as if’ we were a natural thing living within a natural world. But many mystics will tell you pointedly that this conception is just an illusion, which takes place only within the mind much like a dream. Who you actually are is transcendent of this story line. Perhaps this is why when G. Buddha was asked why He was different, he replied, “I am Awake.”

Subjectivity9
 
Caroline
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 06:01 pm
@richrf,
Subjectivity9, may I be so bold as ask a request? Please may you watch the video in Justin's Video section on how to multi-quote properely, only it makes it easier for the guys and I.
Thanks, I appreciate it.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 06:12 pm
@richrf,
Quote:
S9: That makes me think of the discovery that the world is round and therefore you can start anywhere in order to get anywhere else, even if that destination is directly behind you. But why indulge in these many journeys if you were to know you simply had to step back into it? Or as it is often said, "Take your seat."

Of course the mind sees everything as a process, which is what becoming means. But we are not becoming Spirit or Ultimate Truth. We are already "That." As in "You are That."


The process of finding that all we need to do is sit down is more complicated than just taking a seat. It is as if the chair is there but we can't see it. The journey of enlightenment is exactly that, a journey. It is in the word enlighten that one must shed light upon. So if the chair is illuminated with a big shopping mall 'you are here' dot above it, it is fine to just sit down. Otherwise we must journey. I have a dog with hip displacia. I know that once she lays down she will be more comfortable, but she stands until she is exhausted before she lays down because she is not equipped to comprehend her moment of pain will be worht the extended rest she would get by suffering it.

Quote:
Capital T Truth isn't a function. Mind functions, or knows things through accumulation. Spirit Knows but never cuts things up and puts them back together like a jigsaw puzzle. Spirit is a state of Being.


The function is the distinction being the journey and the destination the small t and the capital T. If we are not equipped at the moment to accept that we are, that we are already being, in oder to become equipped we must endeavor to be. The capital T if it is the chair of 'we already are and always have been' requires a specific set of blinders to be removed for us to see it, hence the term again enlightenment.

A person's particular blinders come in the form of their indoctrinated cultural ideologies. Every person attempts to ask the questions most adept to their ideology and by doing so asks the questions that will if followed diligently remove the blinders. The function of small t is preparation for whatever big T may be. This makes the ultimate Big T question moot insomuch as once the small t blinders have been removed, and the person has taken their journey, they understand whatever the Big T might be without having to ask a specific question. The big T becomes a perimating reality of being and is no longer the destination.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 06:18 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;91051 wrote:
See this is the thing Kennethamy,

This is a Truth (capital T, as in Ultimate Truth) that can be pointed at, (very Zen) and even witnessed individually on an extremely intimate level of feeling (or is it intuition? No matter). You can feel (or is it witness) your very own Being, can you not?

Furthermore, you cannot deny in good faith that you are present to yourself right here and now, and yet, it would be impossible to give an example of this to be witnessed by another outside of you. This is because we all have this very basic and essential experience of Truth or Self within a more subjective place. It is not however something that we share like cutting up a pie in individual pieces and passing these pieces around. We each experience this as All of It and All at once. We are in fact, "The Alone with the Alone."

This feeling of surety or certainty within us is not a mental object. In fact this Self, that we are, merely allows the mental worlds to take place within It.

You can look right at Who you are, your very Eternal Self, within the immediacy of every moment and realize that this Eternal Self, your very Being, is not only unchanging but is also quite obvious once you know where to look.

Don't take my word for this. Take the time and look for yourself.

Subjectivity9


No, I won't deny that I am present, right now. Why should I when I know that it is true? But is that an example of what you mean by, an "ultimate truth" with a big, 'T". Why does it have a big 'T" is what I don't understand. Why does it not have just a tiny 't' like any other truth. What is "ultimate' about the truth that I am present, but not ultimate about (say) that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, which is also true? You see, I believe that there are truths all right, but what I don't believe is that there are ultimate truths, or, rather, I don't understand the difference between ordinary truths like that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, and what you claim are ultimate truths, like the truth that I am present. What has I am present that Quito is the capital of Ecuador does not have?

Much of what you write is quite opaque to me, and although it contains English terms, and conforms with English syntax, does not seem to be any kind of English that I am familiar with, and, to tell you the truth, seems to me literally meaningless. So, if you care to persuade me of anything, I am afraid that you will have to write in language that I understand, and not say things which (with due respect) seem to me to be gibberish like, "We each experience this as All of It and All at once. We are in fact, "The Alone with the Alone." ".
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Sat 19 Sep, 2009 07:46 am
@richrf,
GoshisDead,

G: The process of finding that all we need to do is sit down is more complicated than just taking a seat.

S9: Is it? What exactly is it about “Stop” that is so difficult to fathom? The mind certainly likes to take what is simple and make it complex. Conflict is mind’s very lifeblood.

When we actually “stop” even for a second, what we run into is a “Quiet Calm Presence.” Then the mind immediately steps in and tells us that this is nothing or this is emptiness. But in fact what we have stumbled onto is Pure Awareness without any need of an object.

This is probably why some have referred to this state as the ‘Dark Night of the Soul.’ This is because the mind paints this state in one of two ways: (1) As itself having been abandoned or (2) of having no place to go. But then wouldn’t we expect the mind to think this way? The mind has never known anything but dissatisfaction and the consequent search for satisfaction. Therefore the mind sees this is a loss of all hope.

The problem is that when we are in this place of non-becoming, or Being, we simply don’t know where we are. It takes some time, just like a newborn baby in order to see where we are and to understand the true meaning of such profound freedom.

G: The capital T if it is the chair of 'we already are and always have been' requires a specific set of blinders to be removed for us to see it, hence the term again enlightenment.

S9: Exactly, so now the question becomes how in “God’s Name” do we get those seemingly ever-present blinders off?

I just “Stopped.” But, what do I mean by that? What I did was completely except what every wise and enlightened person before was saying. I believed that I (Spiritual Self) was already here and now in the Eternal Here and Now.

I knew that the answer was right here, right now in this room with me, or in this immediate moment and required absolutely no time to come about. I looked around me to see what was eternal, or what never changed. I used the litmus of discrimination, “What doesn’t come and go or what isn’t temporary?”

There is no doubt in my mind that the mind at one point was a wonderful tool and brought me to the place where I could finally ‘Stop.’ But at some point, after perhaps this exhaustion you speak of starts to set in, we must finally “Stop”. It is the only way.

When the Buddha became enlightened, He had just previously stopped and taken his seat under the Bodhi tree. (A metaphor for exactly what I am trying to say)

However when his friends saw him later, after he was enlightened, they simply thought he had failed, or quit, or simply abandoned the path. In fact, what he had done was “Wake Up,” to who he was, and the Ultimate Reality of that.


Subjectivity9
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/19/2021 at 08:23:16