What You Are Not

For sometime I have wondered why do people get offended if somebody says something contrary their beliefs, conceptions, understanding and so on? The projection, as someone mentioned, is very important aspect - or rather to understand the projection.

If we get offended, for example, by some poster here it's the best opportunity to for us get to know ourselves. Every time this happens, we should ask ourselves: "why I was offended?" Each time we may find a reason, a small psychological fragment of our identity which thinks that it is correct and offender is wrong, but soon the realization follows and we should see that the reason for us getting offended was in ourselves, not in the offender.

Good post Silenceisall.

-v

[edit on 10-6-2010 by v01i0]

reply to post by v01i0


Thank you. You clearly stated what I have tried, and somewhat failed, to convey in some of my responses here. All negative emotional reactions point to something inside which needs our attention.

reply to post by Silenceisall


Not at all, I thought you said pretty much the same - or that at least led me to say what I said so I guess your post kinda served the purpose. You just said it more profound way, and in the way that can provoke emotions in the reader - which is good, if they know how to utilize the chance.

-v

reply to post by Silenceisall

reply to post by Silenceisall


What I am asking is, is the mind not separate from the physical?
We cannot touch life, get inside life, feel life, and yet life is what is.
When the mind touches the body is it not overwhelmed by the creative life force?
Is this life force not the absolute ie unconditional love?
Have you read Whitmans poem? He equates the soul with the body, and does so beautifully. He is not alone in this.
Is the body not our ‘magical traveling companion?
Is it not he who sits close to us, and holds our hand, as we travel through life?
Is this not why there is no in-between?
It would explain so much!

reply to post by Silenceisall

Wonderful OP silenceisall, and with me there's a "synchronicity" aspect. I just finished reading Karen Horney's "Neurosis and Human Growth", reading whilst simultaneously introspecting upon myself, and discovered in myself much of what you posted. I just finished it yesterday, then today I read this post and am like "hey, that's just what I've been studying the past couple weeks!"

reply to post by midicon


Hi again,

Whitman is great, but I have not read that poem. He revelled in the body, but integrated all experience. He was a unifyer, who, if you read between the lines, knew that all was one.

So, really, division is the problem. Thinking you are everything is the same as thinking you are nothing. The problem comes when you think you are something among other things. In such cases you are dividing the world, existence, being, what is, or whatever you want to call it. A while ago, I wrote this post about Jiddu Krishnamurti, and how he sees the mind/ego and division:

The mind operates through division, which is the same thing as quantification. This is its fundamental activity. Every other activity of the mind--such as measurement or analysis--flows from division and is dependant upon division. Everything that the mind generates/perceives is as a result of that basic isolating, dividing or quantifying action. Anything that the mind cannot determine the limits of—anything that it calls "infinite"—also cannot be held in the mind and manipulated. That which cannot be quantified is essentially outside the capabilities of the mind and therefore useless to the mind.

The mind uses division to create the concepts of space and time, as well as its own ego or sense of separateness. So we see that space, as a concept, is not possible unless the mind can distinguish and separate visual phenomena, and then create a conceptual stage for those phenomena which it separates from all other concepts and calls "space." Likewise, time as a concept is not possible unless the mind can further subdivide appearances of phenomena in space along an imaginary continuum, and then take that conceptual continuum itself, separate it from other concepts and call it "time." The ego also cannot exist without the mind’s ability to separate one quantity from another--in this case that involves isolating/opposing the self and its attributes and desires in relation to others and their attributes and desires.

This whole discussion becomes more interesting if we then see that the mind is in fact also artificial because division itself creates it. Just like that which the mind creates, the mind as a concept is itself a creation of division and cannot exist without it. I think this is essential for Krishnamurti. If someone wants to deal with his or her ego and overactive, negative mind, it is a mistake to position the mind or ego as separate, something to be opposed and dominated. The awareness is falling into a trap if it itself isolates mind into a separate entity. If it does this then it is itself employing division (and is therefore more appropriately called mind). Instead the awareness should locate the urge to create division itself, and eliminate that from its fundamental worldview. From this point compassion and engagement can flow naturally. Other people, the earth, animals, all of it can be recognized as no more than appearences of one unified energy (or whatever you want to call it...being, god, etc), and cared for accordingly. It is important to note that this way of seeing the world is not conceptual, but is actually a mode or way of being--operating from pure awareness, and understanding that division is a practical tool for manifesting its essential nature (call it universal love) and nothing more.


[edit on 10-6-2010 by Silenceisall]

reply to post by NewlyAwakened


Hi NewlyAwakened:

It sounds like you are begining to clean house. Although true liberation comes whne you realize there is no house. You are brave indeed if you are willing to take such a hard and honest look at yourself. Best to you.

reply to post by Silenceisall


Thanks for your lengthy and considerate reply, it is appreciated, particularly the last paragraph!
However if the mind is artificial then is it not the ghost in the machine and rather than say ‘you are not your body’ should we not say ‘you are not your mind’?
Is your body not ‘life’? Is it not life that is aware? Does it then not follow that you are your body?
I do understand that ultimately we are both but is there not a danger here, when you say ‘you are not your body’? Is this not somehow in denial of ‘what is’?

reply to post by midicon


Yes, by my own definition, no thought is fundamentally true, so the thought you are not your body (or mind), is no better than you are your body (or mind). There is a good spiritual teacher out there who is far far better than me at pointing to this fundamental reality. Check out some Adyashanti videos on Youtube.

www.youtube.com...