It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is the self to you?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
As I've been reading books on Buddhism at my local library which is where I am now to type this thread out I've been a bit interested in what the self is. Also doing a bit of online research there's quite a vast amount of opinions on the subject matter. I will list some and give you my opinion on what the self is, and then maybe you can tell me your belief! =)
---------------------------------------------------
"Among all the Buddha's teachings, those on the nature of the self are the hardest to understand, yet they are central to the religion. In fact, "fully perceiving the nature of the self" is one way to define enlightenment.
The Five Skandhas

The Buddha taught that an individual is a combination of five aggregates of existence, also called the Five Skandhas or the five heaps. These are:

1. Form
2. Sensation
3. Perception
4. Mental formations
5. Consciousness

Various schools of Buddhism interpret the skandhas in somewhat different ways. Generally, the first skandha is our physical form. The second is made up of our feelings, emotional and physical, and our senses -- seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling.

The third skandha, perception, takes in most of what we call thinking -- conceptualization, cognition, reasoning. This also includes the recognition that occurs when an organ comes into contact with an object. Perception can be thought of as "that which identifies." The object perceived may be a physical object or a mental one, such as an idea.

The fourth skandha, mental formations, includes habits, prejudices and predispositions. Our volition, or willfulness, also is part of the fourth skandha, as are attention, faith, conscientiousness, pride, desire, vindictiveness, and many other mental states both virtuous and not virtuous. The causes and effects of karma are especially important to the fourth skandha.

The fifth skandha, consciousness, is awareness of or sensitivity to an object, but without conceptualization. Once there is awareness, the third skandha might recognize the object and assign a concept-value to it, and the fourth skandha might react with desire or revulsion or some other mental formation. The fifth skandha is explained in some schools as base that ties the experience of life together.
The Self Is No-Self

What's most important to understand about the skandhas is that they are empty. They are not qualities that an individual possesses, because there is no-self possessing them. This doctrine of no-self is called anatman or anatta.

Very basically, the Buddha taught that "you" are not an integral, autonomous entity. The individual self, or what we might call the ego, is more correctly thought of as a by-product of the skandhas.

On the surface, this appears to be a nihilistic teaching. But the Buddha taught that if we can see through the delusion of the small, individual self, we experience that which is not subject to birth and death.
Two Views

Beyond this point, Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism differ on how anatman is understood. In fact, more than anything else it is the different understanding of self that defines and separates the two schools.

Very basically, Theravada considers anatman to mean that an individual's ego or personality is a fetter and delusion. Once freed of this delusion, the individual may enjoy the bliss of Nirvana.

Mahayana, on the other hand, considers all physical forms to be void of intrinsic self (a teaching called shunyata, which means "emptiness"). The ideal in Mahayana is to enable all beings to be enlightened together, not only out of a sense of compassion, but because we are not really separate, autonomous beings."
---------------------------------------------------
Ken Wilber describes the Witnessing (or Observing) Self in the following terms:

"This observing Self is usually called the Self with a capital S, or the Witness, or pure Presence, or pure Awareness, or Consciousness as such, and this Self as transparent Witness is a direct ray of the living Divine. The ultimate "I AM" is Christ, is Buddha, is Emptiness itself: such is the startling testimony of the world's great mystics and sages."

He adds that the Self is not an Emergent, but an aspect present from the start as the basic form of awareness, but which becomes increasingly obvious and self aware "as growth and transcendence matures." As Depth increases, consciousness shines forth more noticeably, until:

"shed[ding] its lesser identification with both the body and the mind ... in each case from matter to body to mind to Spirit... consciousness or the observing Self sheds an exclusive identity with a lesser and shallower dimension, and opens up to deeper and higher and wider occasions, until it opens up to its own ultimate ground in Spirit itself. And the stages of transpersonal growth and development are basically the stages of following this Observing Self to its ultimate abode, which is pure Spirit or pure Emptiness, the ground, path and fruition of the entire display."
---------------------------------------------------
In a similar vein, Evelyn Underhill states:

"It is clear that under ordinary conditions, and save for sudden gusts of "Transcendental Feeling" induced by some saving madness such as Religion, Art, or Love, the superficial self knows nothing of the attitude of this silent watcher—this "Dweller in the Innermost"—towards the incoming messages of the external world: nor of the activities which they awake in it. Concentrated on the sense-world, and the messages she receives from it, she knows nothing of the relations which exist between this subject and the unattainable Object of all thought. But by a deliberate inattention to the messages of the senses, such as that which is induced by contemplation, the mystic can bring the ground of the soul, the seat of "Transcendental Feeling," within the area of consciousness: making it amenable to the activity of the will. Thus becoming unaware of his usual and largely fictitious "external world," another and more substantial set of perceptions, which never have their chance under normal conditions, rise to the surface. Sometimes these unite with the normal reasoning faculties. More often, they supersede them. Some such exchange, such "losing to find," appears to be necessary, if man's transcendental powers are to have their full chance."

---------------------------------------------------


[edit on 9-10-2009 by 4stral4pprentice]




posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
According to Abraham Maslow's theory of "self-actualization needs: to find self fulfillment and realize one's potential." He thought that once a person realizes what they are capable of it gives them a motivation to do whatever they intend.
---------------------------------------------------
Albert Bandura believed in "self-efficacy, which refers to a person's learned expectations of success." This theory states that people are bound to complete a task more effectively if they think they will succeed. If a person is more negative about their abilities the chances of them completing the task accordingly are less.
---------------------------------------------------
Carl Rogers' theory is that "people use the term self concept to refer to all the information and beliefs you have as an individual regarding your own nature, unique qualities, and typical behaviors." Rogers thought that people develop through relationships with others and also in relation to themselves. An encouraging environment helps people towards this development.
---------------------------------------------------
The Buddha in particular attacked all attempts to conceive of a fixed self, while stating that holding the view "I have no self" is also mistaken. This is an example of the middle way charted by the Buddha.
---------------------------------------------------
Daniel Dennett has a deflationary theory of the self. Selves are not physically detectable. Instead, they are a kind of convenient fiction, like a center of gravity, which are convenient as a way of solving physics problems, although they need not correspond to anything tangible — the center of gravity of a hoop is a point in thin air. People constantly tell themselves stories to make sense of their world, and they feature in the stories as a character, and that convenient but fictional character is the self.
---------------------------------------------------
Ramana Maharshi's primary teachings documented in the book Nan Yar (Who am I) state:

* Enquire into the source of the "I" Consciousness by asking "Who am I". The source or seat of "I" consciousness is the true self.
* Self itself is the world; Self itself is 'I'; Self itself is God; all is the Supreme Self (siva swarupam)

Although his primary teaching was self-enquiry, he was also known to have advised the use of self-surrender (to one's Deity or Guru) as an alternative means, which would ultimately converge in to the path of Self-Enquiry.
---------------------------------------------------
David Hume pointed out that we tend to think that we are the same person we were five years ago. Though we have changed in many respects, the same person appears present as was present then. We might start thinking about which features can be changed without changing the underlying self. Hume, however, denies that there is a distinction between the various features of a person and the mysterious self that supposedly bears those features. When we start introspecting, "we are never intimately conscious of anything but a particular perception; man is a bundle or collection of different perceptions which succeed one another with an inconceivable rapidity and are in perpetual flux and movement".
It is plain, that in the course of our thinking, and in the constant revolution of our ideas, our imagination runs easily from one idea to any other that resembles it, and that this quality alone is to the fancy a sufficient bond and association. It is likewise evident that as the senses, in changing their objects, are necessitated to change them regularly, and take them as they lie contiguous to each other, the imagination must by long custom acquire the same method of thinking, and run along the parts of space and time in conceiving its objects."

On Hume's view, these perceptions do not belong to anything. Rather, Hume compares the soul to a commonwealth, which retains its identity not by virtue of some enduring core substance, but by being composed of many different, related, and yet constantly changing elements. The question of personal identity then becomes a matter of characterizing the loose cohesion of one's personal experience. (Note that in the Appendix to the Treatise, Hume said mysteriously that he was dissatisfied with his account of the self, yet he never returned to the issue.) This view is very similar to that in Buddhism.
---------------------------------------------------
While he was imprisoned in a castle, Avicenna wrote his famous "Floating Man" thought experiment to demonstrate human self-awareness and the substantiality of the soul. His "Floating Man" thought experiment tells its readers to imagine themselves suspended in the air, isolated from all sensations, which includes no sensory contact with even their own bodies. He argues that, in this scenario, one would still have self-consciousness. He thus concludes that the idea of the self is not logically dependent on any physical thing, and that the soul should not be seen in relative terms, but as a primary given, a substance. This argument was later refined and simplified by René Descartes in epistemic terms when he stated: "I can abstract from the supposition of all external things, but not from the supposition of my own consciousness."
---------------------------------------------------
Aristotle, following Plato, defined the soul as the core essence of a being, but argued against its having a separate existence. For instance, if a knife had a soul, the act of cutting would be that soul, because 'cutting' is the essence of what it is to be a knife. Unlike Plato and the religious traditions, Aristotle did not consider the soul as some kind of separate, ghostly occupant of the body (just as we cannot separate the activity of cutting from the knife). As the soul, in Aristotle's view, is an activity of the body, it cannot be immortal (when a knife is destroyed, the cutting stops). More precisely, the soul is the "first activity" of a living body. This is a state, or a potential for actual, or 'second', activity. "The axe has an edge for cutting" was, for Aristotle, analogous to "humans have bodies for rational activity," and the potential for rational activity thus constituted the essence of a human soul. Aristotle used his concept of the soul in many of his works; the De Anima (On the Soul) provides a good place to start to gain more understanding of his views.



[edit on 9-10-2009 by 4stral4pprentice]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Aristotle also believed that there were four sections of the soul. The four sections are calculative part, the scientific part on the rational side used for making decisions and the desiderative part and the vegetative part on the irrational side responsible for identifying our needs.
---------------------------------------------------
Lao Tzu, in his Tao Te Ching, says "Knowing others is wisdom. Knowing the self is enlightenment. Mastering others requires force. Mastering the self requires strength."
Adi Shankaracharya, in his commentary on Bhagavad Gita says "Self-knowledge alone eradicates misery". "Self-knowledge alone is the means to the highest bliss." "Absolute perfection is the consummation of Self-knowledge."
---------------------------------------------------

My belief on what the self is, is kind of twisted but simple. Twisted as in I have two beliefs on it that are actually just one. I believe that the self is everything and I also believe the self or illusionary individual self is awareness, or consciousness, or that silent observer. As you can see my two beliefs become one as I believe all is one.

What is your definition of the self?

[edit on 9-10-2009 by 4stral4pprentice]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
the self is the soul. the self is residing in your heart and not your ego.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jvm222
the self is the soul. the self is residing in your heart and not your ego.


It does make more sense that your self would be situated at your heart center rather then your mind/ego but do you have and more info to back your claim? Just trying to learn is all. =)



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by 4stral4pprentice
 


Interesting query. My self is myself, enthralled in an energy-field of carefree "bulge it, baby!" zealousness, which radiates here to there and to and fro--and from the base, fawny mae, and outward to ethereal regions that only my great, great, grandmother, America could describe. Yes, her name was "America". So, to get back to what I was saying, I am more than this or something else, I am plucky, I roar.

plucky



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
This discussion is unbelievably complex. I'm giving you a star and flag just for the courage to bring this issue up. Can't wait to read other peoples ideas on this. I'm afraid to devote myself to figure this out. I've tried just for fun a couple of times and it makes me extremely frustrated that I cannot assure myself that I'm right.

This is my current (today) take.

The self is all. But there is more then all. So what exactly is all? All is manifestation of power. What is beyond all? Pure power in its potential to manifest. The self is everything. But everything is not absolute, it is in constant change, thus the idea of no-self (to not become attached to any specific phase of the infinite change and realize the true nature of the self). Nothing (or pure power) is absolute and ineffable, it cannot be spoken, only experienced and utilized.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Geladinhu
 


I am finding myself a bit off put by much of what is said on this subject. Many sound like they just spout metaphysics from a book. It all sounds beautiful and all but really signifies nothing.

I see a repeating pattern of expression of the ego or some description of an experience of truth and oneness. What is missing? What seems to be missing in the realizations? They do not seem complete. Why? Because in fact they are not.

We seem to suffer some bimodal kind of situation where we're either "there" or back "here". The minute we think about it, we're abruptly snapped back. Noone seems to get a chance to "trace the circuits", to examine the machine in detail. We're too close or too far. Imagine trying to examine anything in this way, say, to read a book. You're either watching the T.V. or experiencing the electron gun directly with little in between to fuse it into a coherent whole, to know the machine.

Heck, the idea of duality vs. non-duality is a duality. Something is sneaking by in the wires, having a good laugh.

What sort of absurdity is the word "ineffable"? Who came up with that? You just described it and lay a verbal concept to that something you said couldn't be described in words.

I suppose either a new approach is needed or to understand that aspect requires that evolution proceed as normal where the understanding forms through a different sort of movement. The occasional shortcut trip seems to be lacking something important.

So, in all that, what is the self? I have no freakin' idea. Illusion? Not illusion? One-ness apparently involved and forgetful? Endless descriptions people bring to it that all sound much the same. Sure, they make sense to me because I have reached understandings of that nature on my own but how does that really operate? I want nitty the nitty gritty mechanics of the whole mess. I know it exists. Perhaps I am glimpsing something of that part and finding endless frustration at the ineffableness. Perhaps we're not meant to know anything about that yet and it's driving me into madness. It really feels like it. My apparent psychosis will progress. You all can witness that. Go get some popcorn and watch the show.

What did I just say? Who is it that cares? Who isn't it that doesn't? I am the overheating toaster with no bread that doesn't know it. It can't know it. It just does its cycle regardless, buzz, pop. Who loads and unloads?

One slice on this side >>



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


Hey, calm down. Plug that toaster off. Relax. Bread or no bread its no use if burned.


Most of what I say I believe is copied and formatted from another place. That doesn't make it less valuable though in my opinion. In fact, its the way I find to extend our boundaries over the boundaries of the ineffable or simply merge with the ineffable into one current of awareness and intention.

I like how you bring up the issue of the ineffable.
Its not the word ineffable thats an absurd, its the ineffable in itself that is.
I'll tell you a secret, the ineffable is not really ineffable in its essence, but the wise make it so because its more efficient that way.

Power corrupts. Silence is a kind of mechanism to avoid corruption, or at least an attempt to maintain one focused. If there are no others to relate to, no others to exchange experience then there is no unconscious manipulation, no "game" only learning and applying in order to know more.

I believe the only question that has no answer is how far one can go into the quest of knowledge?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Geladinhu
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


Hey, calm down. Plug that toaster off. Relax. Bread or no bread its no use if burned.


Call the fire department!


Most of what I say I believe is copied and formatted from another place. That doesn't make it less valuable though in my opinion. In fact, its the way I find to extend our boundaries over the boundaries of the ineffable or simply merge with the ineffable into one current of awareness and intention.


I appreciate your honest reply and also the fact you aren't too squeamish to deal with me.


I want to shake things up to get people out their expressive ruts. I want to get myself out of my ruts.

I too find those things useful in assisting me to express myself in a forum. The challenge however is to find my own voice. I hope we may find a new way of relating and relaying knowledge to accelerate everyone's seeking. I am acutely aware of some gap in what gets bandied about. Perhaps there is information in that domain that is purposefully withheld. If I find out what it is and how to utilize it, I am not going to remain silent. It is for everyone.


I like how you bring up the issue of the ineffable.
Its not the word ineffable thats an absurd, its the ineffable in itself that is.
I'll tell you a secret, the ineffable is not really ineffable in its essence, but the wise make it so because its more efficient that way.


I see the ineffable as ineffable so long as the experiences are not widely shared, yet. At some point the reach of language can be widened. The Sanskrit seems to be inclusive in realms that languages like English seem to exclude. That is likely the result of a culture with what we might consider a more esoteric focus.


Power corrupts. Silence is a kind of mechanism to avoid corruption, or at least an attempt to maintain one focused. If there are no others to relate to, no others to exchange experience then there is no unconscious manipulation, no "game" only learning and applying in order to know more.


I'm not out for power, even if as they say, "knowledge is power". I'm not riddled with fear of what I might do with it. If I have it, so what? If I need to use it, I will. It is meant to be used. It is meant to be shared. In fact, now is the time. I seek no advantages over anyone. Noone must lack so that I may "possess".


I believe the only question that has no answer is how far one can go into the quest of knowledge?


I have found no answer to that except to say that from my perspective it seems vast. Even so, some basic grasp of the machine itself seems within reach. Perhaps a fairly thorough understanding is as well. Much of what is said is like opening the cover on the TV and noticing resistors, capacitors, various integrated circuits, etc. and noticing all these parts have little copper traces connecting them. They must be important. They must all do their part for the whole. They must be there for a reason. To remove any would imperil the functioning (though you wouldn't necessarily know how in advance). Still, could one construct the device or one like it on that level of knowledge alone? No. One is getting a glimpse of the circuits the other is like being the electrical engineer. The latter has a more thorough understanding of what all that stuff inside really means and its part in the operation. The latter person could even design and build their own custom model with the preferred set of features.

It occurs to me that something is unusual here. It is possible to have an understanding of the electrical components and what they do without ever having actually experienced a "real" one. Ah, yes. Now I get it. That's the difference. That's what makes the master. Sorry to overturn so many assertions over the ages about the need of direct experience. They are false. Only the non-technical, non-designer need actually experience the components to have a grasp on them and yet not a grasp that allows that one to employ them effictively. The master can make use of pure thought and create the experience, possibly for the first time for everyone. The master understands essential properties and can apply them in myriad, original ways.

My sense is that manifestation is restriction of potential. Much how electricity moves about in random, unpredictable ways. Without circuits it is chaotic. The circuits place boundaries on the possibilities to produce a particular manifestation of its potential. Even in a computer, the software constrains the possible arrangement of 0's and 1's within the machine so that it may manifest a function in purposeful ways.

Am I agreeing in some round about way that a self is a lack or void that erronously believes in its wholeness? An etching away of the unwanted copper from the substrate with some odd little transformative bits to connect the bits that remain? I suppose the raw, unetched copper clad board is a modern analogy of the uncarved block. Nothing is in fact everything. Many possible sculptures are already in the stone, just remove the unneeded bits.

So, scratch that bit about the ineffable. It seems a bit quaint now. In an hour or day, who knows. Perhaps the cycle will repeat at a more advanced point.

Hmmm. Well, interesting. Frustrating! I still feel no wiser other than to know the true function of what some may label "a god". A god is not a pure creator. A god is a filter. So is a self. Creation and destruction are inseparable.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
EnlightenUp, I think you have made some good points of which most I disagree. Maybe because I simply don't understand or don't have the knowledge required. I'm young and still forgetful so every time I have the opportunity I say something stupid.


Since I think I haven't understood it all I won't address your citations and oppose them with my points of view. I'll leave them where they are and hope that someone is capable of addressing them to keep this discussion going.

I'm going to read your post again and think about it.
Then I'll probably read it again.
Maybe tomorrow I'll be able to share my points of view without going completely off-track. I don't really intend to, I know your going to slap me for whatever I say.


Anyhow, if the thread just dies here I'll try to keep it alive for a little more.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
The Self, indeed represents the Soul, as a whole, as our existence expands across ( what we call ) time itself. We are Ageless Entities, in a Aging form. But without this we wouldn't understand and have the Experiences to interact with all levels of ourselves.

Our being here, is not a mistake, not a fluke of nature, nor a evolutionary response to elemental collisions. We are like a Story, inside a Movie, inside a Story, thats being referenced by a Poem.

Together we are, but divided we understand, and come to a realization that indeed ourselves are all.

The facts, well the facts are all around you, inside you, inside me, in every word, thought, action we do, its in the Stars, and everywhere else we can and can't imagine.

As the individual cells of our neurological system work together to feel, We to operate in such a way, our thoughts manifest our realities through our reactions, and thus forth can prevent us from really seeing what is there and has always been.

United we are, divided we fall, United we feel, divided we hurt, Together we move forward to understanding what is Ourselves Self.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Geladinhu
I'm going to read your post again and think about it.
Then I'll probably read it again.


To put such effort to make sense of what I'm expressing here is a gesture that means alot to me actually. Thank you.

I cannot say I'm 100% clear on everything either. I try by making my best guesses then I respond and hope for the best. Hopefully I'll come to understanding in the long run. I'm usually most stubborn near the beginning.


Maybe tomorrow I'll be able to share my points of view without going completely off-track. I don't really intend to, I know your going to slap me for whatever I say.


Slap? Turn the other cheek! I didn't say anything without at least offering my own. I just want to challenge ideas, teachings and expressions on enlightenment. They cannot be left stagnant as they themselves are part of a world that changes. I will always be heretical. There is no intent on my part to degrade anything anyone says. I apologize to anyone who may have interpreted things that way.

And so, a quick-paced video that could be of some assistance with anything I said that is too process-oriented:



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by Geladinhu
I'm going to read your post again and think about it.
Then I'll probably read it again.


To put such effort to make sense of what I'm expressing here is a gesture that means alot to me actually. Thank you.


You are very welcome.



Originally posted by EnlightenUp
I just want to challenge ideas, teachings and expressions on enlightenment.


I think this is why we are disagreeing. We are talking about different things. You are talking about enlightenment while I am not. I'm talking about philosophy/metaphysics/sorcery or whatever one wishes to call it, which deals exactly with knowledge or power. I don't know if its a bit presumptuous of me but I'm considering the enlightenment lesson already learned. I'm trying to go beyond the "feeling good" into a realm where the focus is productivity. Maybe our idea of enlightenment is not the same also. Maybe your idea of enlightenment includes what I believe is beyond it. Its quite difficult to discuss about all this without having our terms defined first.

I think you understand what I'm trying to say. Maybe not. Please tell me. I don't consider enlightenment an issue anymore. But maybe I should?
I am aware that my approach is very selfish. But selfless and selfish are really just two sides of the same coin, are they not?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Geladinhu
 


I think you identified the problem. I suppose my definition of enlightenment does include that which you consider beyond it. It's not a conscious choice I recall making to arrive at that but one that felt natural to me. At least that way, I don't go around considering myself enlightened but humbled by the enormity of everything, in awe of all the possibility. In the same vein, I have more enlightening experiences to look forward to for who knows how long.

As far as what you should do concerning enlightenment issues? Who am I to say? In thinking about it, I see selfless/selfish to be two extremes of the same nature. It is oft said that extremes meet. If they're two side of a coin, I like to balance it on its edge. That way, it's easier to push it one way or the other when it suits me.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
reply to post by Geladinhu
 


I am finding myself a bit off put by much of what is said on this subject. Many sound like they just spout metaphysics from a book. It all sounds beautiful and all but really signifies nothing.


Well I'm not sure where most of that info I got came from, but my opinion isn't something insignificant nor did I just spout it from a book. Sure I've received a lot of my teachings from reading books, but don't we all learn from some source to say something about it in our opinion? To expand a little further everything I believe in, I believe it to be so because my experiences have related with that new idea, usually on more then one occasion. For example one reason I feel that I truly am one with all is because I have done telekinesis before.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by 4stral4pprentice
 


Yes, I have had my time with books, reading and whatever else and will continue to do so. I will consider and reflect upon what you and others have to say. My experiences and insights have presented themselves in ways where I am so very sure that they must be true. I have had much material I read later resonate with what I discovered on my own by seeking inwardly. Regardless, for myself, I don't really put much significance in my opinions or even my experiences. Relative to my apparent identity, sure, they seem quite significant.

I suppose any substantially true truth should emerge unscathed from heavy assault. But, is that because it is so firm and steadfast, an immoveable object that firmly resists every blow, or is it because it is like the water where after every blow to it that it absorbs, it eventually settles back into calm, silent stillness with no sign of being disturbed? Perhaps both, as those qualities don't ultimately seem unalike.

 


Funny, this post brought a dude to my attention that on the surface seems pissed-off and cranky about all the nonsense. I'll put one of those here.



Frackin' LOL!


[edit on 10/13/2009 by EnlightenUp]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


I agree, neither do I hold my experiences or opinions as absolute Truth, I know nothing, which is why I seek all knowledge or as much as I can attain to try to make sense of whatever the subject may be which i wish to learn more of. Which may be the main reason why I also wish to astral project, to enter the Akashic records! =] Learning is an addiction to me.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by 4stral4pprentice]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
On the subject of an altered sense of self, I'll talk about something from last night while in hypnogogic trance trying to get to sleep, one that, well, I wonder if anyone else will know what I am saying. I seem to remember asking for some sort of contact while fading away from this world and specifying that it not be by anything negative.

In this realm, I might as well call it that, I had no sense of having senses. All experience was direct. All experience was that of other entities, or perhaps more accurately, other minds. The feeling was something like that of being a crystal dissolving into a solution. It had a peculiar sting. I felt sort of as if I were a no-self self, if that makes any sense.

A mind contacted me, so it seemed, and conveyed the thought the world of no flames is an illusion. I snapped back in terror mostly into a normal state yet I still had not returned completely. I got up to hit the John. While taking care of my needs, I thought, "'Illusion', well duh! Maybe you should clarify that."

The responded in pure thought was, "[Illusion in this case means] 'doesn't exist'."

I'm still not certain what a "world of no flames" is (besides a civil message board like ATS). Could this be a very low place, very hellish where the inhabitants cannot conceive of something heavenly? Or could it be conveying the idea that there is no place in the cosmos the light (light the light of a candle) doesn't reach, even if only faintly? Something else?

It felt like the sort of thing that would make a normal human monkey mind flip out. As peculiar as it was I will try to get back into that mode, hopefully long enough to explore it more deeply.

So, does the OP or anyone have any (insignful) thoughts on the significance of this?




top topics



 
3

log in

join