Self May Be The Most Important Thing We Have.

Yes I hear where you are coming from Australia is an action kind of place! As for "harmlessness! well I have found that to do a lot of harm in my life at times. It depends how much thought you put in to your non action, of course once you do that there is some kind of action/reaction happening. A vibe is felt, a potential outcome is noted by others and boom your ready to go.
But hey, let us not throw the baby out with the bath water. Have a good one. ATa reply to: Whatsthisthen

a reply to: ancientthunder

No worries mate.

All limits of perception are simply thought-forms and thus creations. Remove them and there is no distinction between 'self' and 'non-self'. This is the idea of Atman - the Universal Self that is hidden behind a plethora of various masks that we wear.

The individual spark is paradoxically unified with all Creation. Our mind cannot think of paradox and thus immediately creates an unreality that prevents submerging back into the oneness. It is simply impossible to explain why solipsism is false to humans, except by pointing out that the solutions to the equation are too paradoxical for the human mind to comprehend.

Solipsism IS false, as it is simply another thought-form, perceived as an 'absolute limit'. Whence 'absolute limits'? (Or any limits for that matter?) In true reality, there are no real limits. All limits lie in the sphere of unreality, so whenever you think of limits, and especially of absolute ones, know that you're high on Maya and unreality.

On a side note, I tend to associate the 'real' with good and the 'unreal' with evil (acknowledging it as perfect the way it is), which is an interesting and very complex topic. Anyone interested?

P.S. I think I've found a simpler way to say what I mean.

It is important to this dimension that you appreciate what is known as 'self' and 'individuality'. They are real enough for us to experience and appreciate, even though they are constructed with a lot of imaginary numbers involved (unreality).

But on a parallel plane, the truth is that we're engaging in a 'false' identification with the construct that is our personality. Keep in mind, both planes have an element of truth to them. It's sort of a split personality thing. Not exactly, because there is the identification with the Self.. and there is the reality of No-Self.

On the generally deeper plane, *you are the One* having the experience of ego/persona/self identification.

As the Buddhists like to say .. 'Everything is One.' You are that One, and everything else is Illusion. A fantastic illusion to be sure. It makes you appreciate the Self as the miracle, and unreality as something divine and supernatural.

a reply to: Rhaegar7

'day Rhaegar7.

"Atman" - the self beyond self. A second self.

That's a difficult one. How does one know if it exists?

The egregors. The definition of an egregor is that it is a collective thought form. But let's take a big one such as the church of Rome.

One night say that the Church of Rome is a gigantic egregor with a compound nature that has layers beyond the thought including an astral aether and even physical buildings. Let's include everything that is built around the egregor and what is within the egregor's self.

If the Church of Rome is a collective compound egregor that is way bigger then the individual, how would one know that what one perceives from within the egregor as the Atman is not the egregor?

Same with the Buddhist and Hindu . . . .

yea people are stupid in this subject.

they say someone iss full of themselves, shouldnt that be good thing, rather than be full of externall substances like jesus and whatsoever..

be truth to yourself and you are EVERYTHING, that is way creator made us

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Well, it's a question of separating what's real from the illusion. Buddhist thinking would say that 'everything is One' or that 'everything is (one) Mind'. Icke has gotten into the habit of saying that 'Infinite Love is all there is. Everything else is illusion.' which I agree with.

Meditative practice tends to remove the thought-forms and leave one with a strong appreciation of oneness and universal love that goes beyond ordinary human perception. It is akin to removing weeds from the garden of the Mind. The process could involve logical thinking, similarly to how Descartes decided to discard all of his beliefs one by one, until he reached the conclusion that he could not doubt the existence of his own self (perhaps prematurely) and that of God.

I used to think along the lines of 'Everything is an illusion. Only God is real.' But since, I've decided to revise my notions of the Source and now I simply call it 'the One'. I feel that 'The Source/The One' is a cleaner representation of ultimate reality as 'God' invokes the notion of some kind of 'entity' that is 'in control'. These are ridiculous notions, of course. I myself do believe in a kind of Deistic God, but he's impersonal and non-interfering, and has nothing to do with the theological one. That's why I prefer to talk about 'Source/One' in order to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings.

The Zen tradition has largely focused on the goal of instant enlightenment. As I was reading the free e-book 'The Zen Experience' I managed to appreciate the general message of Zen. It's available for free at Amazon. I strongly recommend it.

For me, the quest for truth (or more precisely - reality) requires a sort of a 'red pill' experience. That's what Zen has been after for more than a thousand years now. In the Zen tradition, enlightenment is not achieved through the accumulation of knowledge/wisdom, but rather - through the experience of an instant of clarity, which clears the Mind for good.

The one is the one (and that is not a random pun, but rather denotes just how basic this reality is). Meditating upon the number 'One' and what it entails can be very beneficial for furthering understanding. 'One' denotes perfect, unbroken unity. The oneness of the whole.

To go outside the box, you need to think outside the box. Trust your intuition and it will guide you towards your goal.

My own take on the road to enlightenment is this. "The red pill is to realize the truth is right in front of you. The blue pill is to search for it .. 'somewhere else'. "

a reply to: Rhaegar7

Zen, I just don't get that, nor koans. I would make a terrible student of Buddhism and drive even the most saintly to violence and bad language in their frustration.

What I was getting at is a little more down to earth.

I don't doubt the "one" exists, and methinks there are more then just one one too : )

So what you reckon Rhaegar7, if say a theosophist realised the "one"; from within the theosophical egregor (as a theosophist would), would that be a "one" unique to theosophy?

So too the buddist, would a Buddhist behold the "one" that is created within the Buddhist egregor?

If this is indeed so, as I think it does, then what lays beyond the egregor?

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen

I don't doubt the "one" exists, and methinks there are more then just one one too : )

As far as a physical description of this 'one' goes, I believe in a 'Multi-Absolute'. But there is *one* Multi-Absolute.

So what you reckon Rhaegar7, if say a theosophist realised the "one"; from within the theosophical egregor (as a theosophist would), would that be a "one" unique to theosophy?

So too the buddist, would a Buddhist behold the "one" that is created within the Buddhist egregor?

If this is indeed so, as I think it does, then what lays beyond the egregor?

Well, I don't think we can fully appreciate what 'the one' entails while we're still human. But we can certainly acknowledge its metaphysical importance. I don't think you can contain 'the one' in one particular creed, as this 'one' is all-encompassing and all-inclusive. As far as Buddhism and Theosophy go, they consider their own insights to be universal and not religious or religion-specific. Buddhists and Theosophists would likely point out that while their teaching points to the truth of universal oneness, it does not own this existential realization. On the other hand - the doctrine of oneness is incompatible with the Abrahamic religions and would demolish their theologies if accepted.

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen

Zen, I just don't get that, nor koans. I would make a terrible student of Buddhism and drive even the most saintly to violence and bad language in their frustration.

Let's see..

The student, Doko, came to a Zen master, and said, “I am seeking the truth. In what state of mind should I train myself, so as to find it?”

The master said, “There is no mind, so you cannot put it in any state. There is no truth, so you cannot train yourself for it.”

Doko responded, “If there is no mind to train, and no truth to find, why do you have these monks gather before you every day to study Zen and train themselves for this study?”

“But I haven’t an inch of room here,” said the master, “so how could the monks gather? I have no tongue, so how could I call them together or teach them?”

“Oh, how can you lie like this?” asked Doko.

“But if I have no tongue to talk to others, how can I lie to you?” asked the master.

Then Doko said sadly, “I cannot follow you. I cannot understand you.”

“I cannot understand myself,” said the master.



The book is a fun read. Try it.

a reply to: Rhaegar7

Let's see..

The student, Doko, came to a Zen master, and said, “I am seeking the truth. In what state of mind should I train myself, so as to find it?”

The master said, “There is no mind, so you cannot put it in any state. There is no truth, so you cannot train yourself for it.”

Doko responded, “If there is no mind to train, and no truth to find, why do you have these monks gather before you every day to study Zen and train themselves for this study?”

“But I haven’t an inch of room here,” said the master, “so how could the monks gather? I have no tongue, so how could I call them together or teach them?”

“Oh, how can you lie like this?” asked Doko.

“But if I have no tongue to talk to others, how can I lie to you?” asked the master.

Then Doko said sadly, “I cannot follow you. I cannot understand you.”

“I cannot understand myself,” said the master.

That was good : )




But I don't think it is for me while still corporeal in this world.

a reply to: Rhaegar7

Well, I don't think we can fully appreciate what 'the one' entails while we're still human. But we can certainly acknowledge its metaphysical importance. I don't think you can contain 'the one' in one particular creed, as this 'one' is all-encompassing and all-inclusive. As far as Buddhism and Theosophy go, they consider their own insights to be universal and not religious or religion-specific. Buddhists and Theosophists would likely point out that while their teaching points to the truth of universal oneness, it does not own this existential realization. On the other hand - the doctrine of oneness is incompatible with the Abrahamic religions and would demolish their theologies if accepted.

Nothing wrong with chasing oneness if that is what a person wants to do.

But I wonder from a practical point of view the safety of it all.

I watched an family member, an old school theosophist, he spent his life chasing the "one". He found what he called "Sophia" and in a way became "one" with her. Her knowledge (memories) he had access to was too vast for him

He went insane and never recovered.

She went insane too for that matter.

A tragedy for both of them.

The are predators out there is what I am saying here. There are also traps for the unwarry, egregors tend to take over a mind when one enters into them.

Through out history Buddhism, as an egregor, has behaved in a rather aggressive way invading foreign lands and destroying the existing philosophies.

I'm no expert on the matter, but when a philosophy such as Animism as it is derogatorily referred, is supplanted with intention, there is something going on.

People co-existed with the Nature and Elemental Beings of the landscape in the past. Tibet and Japan for example. The arrival of Buddhism changed the landscape.

Like the domestication of animals as a point in human history, the arrival of Buddhism domesticated the Elemental and Nature Beings of the landscape and often unnaturally and cruelly within the temple systems.

But not just Buddhism to be fair.

The militancy of the Church of Rome , the Jesuits and other orders ruthlessly destroying the everything that was not of the Church.

The Inquisitors and Exorcists destroying knowledge of the Nature Spirits and other Beings.

The list goes on.

I stand back and look at the egregors. I see collective Beings of grand scale who are often not very nice.

I stand back and watch how they behave. They are often aggressive towards each other, often very competative and certainly acquiring. Those "onenesses" are just like the collective mass of the people within.

Oneness with what exactly? is my question here.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

I feel similarly towards Buddhism (the same really) and I am largely intolerant of all forms of organized religion. I even think all sorts of religious proselytizing should be outlawed.

Detach the idea of 'the inherent oneness of all things' from any unnecessary complements. Simply meditate on the idea that everything is 'paradoxically' and even irrationally 'one'. Rationality fools us in regard of 'the infinite oneness of being'. We have to sidestep it in this case.

When your mind suddenly recognizes the hitherto irrational idea as something tangible, it can be a shock.

To be fair, merchants of enlightenment have supported countless children and mistresses by feeding the masses a grotesque version of the original teaching of Siddharta ('I am awake').

Meditating upon the possibility of something as irrational, and thus hard to comprehend by the usually conditioned mind, as the reality of 'the one', will eventually lead to a breakthrough.

It's not simply an irrational idea. It's literally impossible! (and that's why the mind will urge you to reject it) But it's true!

To quote the critically acclaimed metaphysician Christian P. Drechsler..

"As we expand our frameworks of reality, we turn over new and new pages of its fabric and find ways to explain paradox away with higher and higher logic. Yet logic is finite and definitive, while infinite potential must by definition encode infinite possibility. Logic is simply the language with which we comprehend the underlying code of the Universe, but it cannot by itself limit its expression. Logic is simply the language of the absurd. And perhaps what we thought of as an explanation, is no more than a simple description.

We were quick to assume that the code of the Universe is reason. It turns out it is more akin to insanity."

Yours truly.

Allow for the impossible!

I yam what I yam and that's all what I yam.
-Popeye

In my experience, of 50+ years in this stuff, the 'self' is the final delusion. I've had a number of conversations with so-called 'enlightened' people, and every last one of them, at the 1 yard line, to use a metaphor, crap out and avoid 'selfless AND Selfless' 'void'. They hang onto their stinky spirituality and delude others, because it's all that they have, and they can't live with being 'no thing'. Now, I'm not without sympathy.. I understand..

In the tradition I originally came from, once the 'self' dies, then the body is supposed to die as well. But if it doesn't.. that really throws a wrench into things..

Since this is a thread about 'the self', I thought that resurrecting it from the ATS graveyard might make for an interesting conversation.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Since this is a thread about 'the self', I thought that resurrecting it from the ATS graveyard might make for an interesting conversation.

Yeah, why not? I sometimes feel really guilty when I say stuff in other people's threads. Poor ol' MM, I actually feel like I'm polluting the TTSA thread : (

One disclaimer though KPB (cop out(?) ; p, I can only go within my experience and what I perceive around me. The intellectual abstract is not my forte.

In my experience, of 50+ years in this stuff, the 'self' is the final delusion. I've had a number of conversations with so-called 'enlightened' people, and every last one of them, at the 1 yard line, to use a metaphor, crap out and avoid 'selfless AND Selfless' 'void'. They hang onto their stinky spirituality and delude others, because it's all that they have, and they can't live with being 'no thing'. Now, I'm not without sympathy.. I understand..

Hmmm, I have never experienced a selflessness like they say in the books, I have never experienced oneness either. I have experienced something close where boundaries disappear, yet I always knew the "me".

(heh heh) This thread was from the beginning, a direct (counter) attack on mysticism and the newage concept of "one with the Universe". I'm not very "understanding" when it comes to that. Your a better man than I there KPB : )

In the tradition I originally came from, once the 'self' dies, then the body is supposed to die as well. But if it doesn't.. that really throws a wrench into things..

If I read that properly, what your saying is that there are living people who's self has died, yet their body is still walking and talking?

That is a way of looking at things I have not given much thought to as the circumstance hasn't often crossed my path where I have had to act.

I know a few cases of so-called "near death experience". One is a grown woman who drowned at about seven years of age. She was found floating face down and resuscitated successfully(?).

I found the little dead girl hiding in the woman's house. We identifed her from a photo and pink party dress she was wearing. They really disliked each other, so I took the little one into my care.

So that might be an example of a "walk-in"?

Not much more experience there. But I can see that this probably should not happen.

Is that what your refering to?




Afterthoughts

I've been out watering the fruit trees and thinking.

In cases of trauma and near death you can have a case where a "new" self buds off from the original (now traumatised) self, like in the case above.

But this is still a murkey study for me. There are too many dead traumatised children left to fend for themselves. I've also seen cases of culling out the herd so to speak. Adults too, but they are adults and able to make their own choices in life so I don't feel sorry for them.

And then there is the awful forced distain of the "privalaged dead folks" in their civilised and safe heavens.

It is a dark subject. So I just keep collecting orphans when I find them.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

What I discovered, basically, is that the 'soul is a tulpa'. Humans are tulpa creating machines.

Now, it seems that there are fragments or sparks or whatever you want to call them, that as a group activity interact with humans and other biological species, and get rather lost in the experience.. they get sucked into the 'tulpa' (the movie).

Apparently (this is still all new to me) the foolish ones would advance the tulpa to a high state of awareness and capability, and in the past especially, would pretend to be 'enlightened'. But it's just a tulpa. It has no actual meaning or purpose, except as a side-effect. (Going to a good movie can entertain you, teach you.. but the movie itself is just an illusion).

So when the 'fragments/sparks/whatever' realize they've been fools, the tulpa disintegrates.. but (apparently) it's experience is gobbled up, enriching the fragments/sparks.

Now as I said, usually a person dies when this happens.. but apparently it's possible to start fresh, with building a new tulpa. To be of service again.

This is not a human-centered universe.. we are just organelles.

That's seems to be where things are at, at the present time anyway.

I'm not saying that humans couldn't have a beautiful future.. but they don't seem to want one.. they seem to crave insanity, destruction and death.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Yeah, your right.

Though we would need to work out the mechanics of how it works.

The words "Tulpa" and "soul" are really polluted these days. Neither have much definition.

And lots of unknowns. Like is this something that happens to ordinary folks or something that happens to just some people.

I see lots of youngsters in the afterlife which is why I wonder if it is "everyone"

Now people who go for magic and occulty powers are found in organised egregores in the afterlife, rarely do you find liner deceased Rosicrucian for instance.

If the "sparks" get used as "powers" the occultist would "die" when the sparks left.

Nice subject of enquiry KPB.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

I'ts an ugly subject. People don't want to confront that 'souls' are no different than any other tulpa,
and that in the big picture, everything is temporary and cyclic.

Now I've run into some really ugly 'tulpa/souls' that 'don't want to die.. so they prowl around certain vulnerable people and try to take them over. Of course there is 'some' actual reincarnation after a fashion. And you are correct.. tulpas tend to go to the mass-delusion egregores after death... and unless that faith goes extinct, that egregore will survive for a long time.

You are right about the definitions on souls and tulpas (and sparks) being rather mushy, in the best of cases.

If one wants to come to understand some of this stuff, you have to be willing to get very much down and dirty.. to face things that are unthinkable.. and that's on day 1 of the journey.

Kev

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

I also like to avoid jargon, and like to use simple plain English.

And lots of it...

a reply to: whyamIhere

I do waffle in at times . . .