To be Oneself. Or not.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

What is noticed when sleep is happening? Maybe you have not noticed that which is noticing.
When the stable is found then one has found what one truly is.

There's only one agent that sleeps and dreams and says that he "notices". There is only one actor that says to find the stable and claims to be found. What being does that? Out of what being's thoughts and fingers does this come out of and manifest from? It must be almost too obvious or something.

We can notice that which is noticing by looking in the mirror. Concrete enough evidence. How can you say it is something else?

Aphorism
We can notice that which is noticing by looking in the mirror. Concrete enough evidence. How can you say it is something else?

What is being seen in the mirror is just an image appearing.
Step away from the mirror and that image will not be seen. Notice that seeing continues.

Aphorism
We can notice that which is noticing by looking in the mirror.

Try turning the gaze around and look to 'that which is looking' at the image that is seen.
What is it that notices that seeing is happening?

“What we are looking for is what is looking.” St. Francis of Assisi

Aphorism
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

What is noticed when sleep is happening? Maybe you have not noticed that which is noticing.
When the stable is found then one has found what one truly is.

There's only one agent that sleeps and dreams and says that he "notices".

That which notices does not speak - speaking is noticed.

He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know. Lao-tzu

reply to post by Itisnowagain

What is being seen in the mirror is just an image appearing.
Step away from the mirror and that image will not be seen. Notice that seeing continues.

Appearing to what?

Try turning the gaze around and look to 'that which is looking' at the image that is seen.
What is it that notices that seeing is happening?

“What we are looking for is what is looking.” St. Francis of Assisi

The very same thing that sees and notices and thinks about it and talks about it. Something other than this being notices that he sees?

That which notices does not speak - speaking is noticed.

He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know. Lao-tzu

Then why do you speak? If you notice, why do you speak? Something other than what you are puts words here?

reply to post by Aphorism


Great topic you wrote here. I really like what you wrote, "“To be” is to accept oneself, to be honest with oneself and to value oneself as one already is," Good stuff! Glad I read your thread!

reply to post by Aphorism


I have read several books about meditation the last years, and to me there are two books that sticks out, and that I would recommend people to read. These books has eventually changed the way I see myself and the physical world.

As I am in the process of growing older, I began having problem with constant worrying , anxiety and constant feeling of guilt. My mind were never at rest, it constantly bothered me with troublesome thoughts, constant worrying and bad memories. I often wish there was an ‘off’ button. My internal discussion between ‘me’ and my ‘self’ simply wore me out.

I spent too much time thinking and analyzing things that I have regretted doing in the past, too much time daydreaming, too much time worrying about things that could happen in the future or too much time waiting for the future to change my life situations. Thus there became no time left to spend in the now.

If people recognize this situation, they should read a book called “The power of now”. I have already read it myself a couple of times, and I am now able to quiet down and suppress my internal and uncontrolled conversation with my ‘self’ and enjoy the ‘now’. Thus I can now sit for hour’s on my terrace outside the house and enjoy the multitude of small and insignificant things that happens right in front of me (right now) , and really enjoy myself. It’s like a miracle. This is not the time when one is ‘one self’ , but rather the time when one are only ‘me’. When you have learned the technique , ‘time’ has not power over you anymore, and problems and worries does not exist. I know it works.

Also if people are interested in self-study. There is also another book I can recommend . This book is called “The fourth way”. It is a little tougher to digest, but it will eventually give you something back for the time you spend on reading it.

Both books are available on internet for anybody to read for free. Just Google the titles, and you find them.

I just thought I would mention it.

There is no spirituality found in running from or attempting to destroy what one is. That is death. That is self-betrayal. That is without spirit.

In matters of spirituality there is only one choice, to be oneself or not. To create oneself or destroy oneself.

reply to post by Aphorism


There is also the avenue to improve one's self.
When we are born, we have but basic firmware that keeps us breathing, eating, peeing and pooping. It tells us what hurts, what tickles and we take the first steps of this journey by discovering things we like and don't like.

As we grow, we seek independence and apply a kind of rebellion to those things that constrain us. That's why when Mom says the stove is hot... we have to burn our fingers anyway.

Who we are, spiritually, is indeed who we are but it isn't like we come completely preprogrammed or we would all be identical and that is NOT part of the human condition.

So, over the course of the life of this physical machine we operate, we learn things and through curiosity, we grow and expand. Seeking to be something we are not is often just an attempt to reach a point we have yet to attain. Once we get there, we choose whether the effort was worth it or not... whether the it was good or bad and even then, what is good for one may not be for another.

There is no single answer for every question.

ValentinoG
reply to post by Aphorism

 

So, in a way... you are saying you should be YOURSELF, no matter what anyone else thinks? right?

That's a valid and truthful point. I guess the rub is learning who and what we are listing to when others are criticizing or offering corrective "force" of one type or another on our person. Many people have chips on their shoulders for good reason and put it on or take it off depending on company.

The incessant internal dialouge that's much adeu about nothing is what the self you're talking about is, but that's not really you.

When we where really small we didn't have that, so where you not you then? As we learned what things were and were not, we built discursive thought that just keeps at it, like it or not without some practice to quiet it down. When you look at a door do you need to think door? No but many people do think door when it's wholly unnecessary, to think door or about how one operates once you have experience of them, the same goes for many other contents flipping across the mind at what seems to be uncontrollable.

The mind goes where it likes, says what it wants, and makes one feel chaotic emotions, it makes one act, makes one say, makes one think that the run away mind blithering on about nonsense non stop is a real self, instead of just a reflection of the senses, checked against ones mental repository of past sense impressions. This most times just distorts and gets in the way of what is actually going on, which gives rise to delusions that fuel greed, hate and ignorance.

The Buddhist path puts an end to all of that needless suffering arising from all this usless stress.

If you take all of that stress and needless suffering to be the self, instead of pure awareness and appropriate action to fit the situation, that's not based on previous experience causing you to act a certain way because thats "you" then delusion I'm afraid has become your best friend.

Ever wonder why sociologists do not like people to know they are being observed? Because the results of their observation will become skewed, because if the subjects know are being observed they will starting acting every way other than their "natural self" the world is full of sociopaths acting a part instead of being who they are, with a nagging schizophrenic like voice aserting who and what they are for the facade of the created self.

Yay! Revel in the ego self delusion instead? No thanks, I had quite a bit enough of that, the first time around and fortunately found a way out of that particular hell. I sincerely hope others find their way out as well, if they see it's the root of all their problems causing them and the world to suffer needlessly. But hey if it seems to be working for you no worries, your choice. When it stops working and it will, at least you'll know where to look.

reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness

The incessant internal dialouge that's much adeu about nothing is what the self you're talking about is, but that's not really you.

Then who is it?

I don't want to be myself because I am self-loathing, agoraphobic, and a total spaz. I try repeatedly to offer something positive to others through community service, etc. In the words of John Fogerty "Sometimes I think life is just a rodeo, The trick is to ride and make it to the bell".

I am my body, how do I know this?

Because my body does not like pain because it hurts and is unhealthy.

That is who I am, a being that does not like pain.

If my body has no hands, I have no hands.

If my body has no arms, I have no arm.

When I think a thought, my body responds emotionally showing it is aware of thought.

When the body suffers, I suffer.
When the body is happy, so am I.

I know I am more than my body, also awareness and thought, but denying it as a part of myself is foolish.

Saying I am not my body would mean there is separation but all of our emotions and, perspectives are ONE

reply to post by arpgme

Absolutely. It's almost too obvious. Even if there was a spirit or soul it would nonetheless be an organ of the body.

Further, one can think sexual thoughts and become aroused. One can think sad thoughts and cry. The reverse also happens. One can become aroused and think sexual thoughts. One can begin to cry and think sad thoughts.

There is no need nor no benefit in thinking we are not our bodies. Despising the body is an age old method to those who wish to reign in the afterlife. Realizing the body is health.

reply to post by Aphorism


It's a non existent fabrication. Constantly defining a self; I am this, now I am that, always becoming never a true unchanging self to be found in the whole mental self fabrication ego process. What do you think makes you yourself? The mental fabrications, are always changing, always flowing are inconstant constantly shaping consciousness unconsciously. If one thinks they control the flow and direction it takes, stop thinking for just 30 seconds or hold the mind on a singular point completely un-distracted for 5 minutes, then tell me who is in control of who.

I know you are looking this existentially, with the how am I not myself line of thinking. Perhaps you are intentionally setting a trap with the idea that no matter what, delusional with fabrications of a self or the self under all of that suffering, it is still you. If that's the case then perhaps you were not trying to have a philosophical discussion with your post.

But if you actually are then I will leave you with this to ponder, the screen you are looking at as you read this... what is the screen? Is it the glass? If so then what happened to the screen? Screen doesn't actually exist outside of a concept does it? The self is the same way except the ego says it exists. Ego says I think therefore I am. If you define yourself you also limit yourself, limiting oneself... one also limits others to ones own defined limits of who and what some one or their experience can be, or what reality is.

If that's not enough pondering...

Theseus is remembered in Greek mythology as the slayer of the Minotaur. For years, the Athenians had been sending sacrifices to be given to the Minotaur, a half-man, half-bull beast who inhabited the labyrinth of Knossos. One year, Theseus braved the labyrinth, and killed the Minotaur.

The ship in which he returned was long preserved. As parts of the ship needed repair, it was rebuilt plank by plank. Suppose that, eventually, every plank was replaced; would it still have been the same ship? A strong case can be made for saying that it would have been: When the first plank was replaced, the ship would still have been Theseus’ ship. When the second was replaced, the ship would still have been Theseus’ ship. Changing a single plank can never turn one ship into another. Even when every plank had been replaced, then, and no part of the original ship remained, it would still have been Theseus’ ship.

Suppose, though, that each of the planks removed from Theseus’ ship was restored, and that these planks were then recombined to once again form a ship. Would this have been Theseus’ ship? Again, a strong case can be made for saying that it would have been: this ship would have had precisely the same parts as Theseus’ ship, arranged in precisely the same way.

If this happened, then, then it would seem that Theseus had returned from Knossos in two ships. First, there would have been Theseus’ ship that has had each of its parts replaced one by one. Second, there would have been Theseus’ ship that had been dismantled, restored, and then reassembled. Each of them would have been Theseus’ ship.

Theseus, though, sailed in only one ship. Which one?

reply to post by Aphorism


A few more thoughts about the ‘Me’ versus the ‘Self’.

The ’Me’ versus the ’Self’ is a strange thing. The way I see those ‘things’, is that both are Software that are part of the brain’s operating system . The ‘Me’ is the part that has awareness of the physical world and controls the senses, and builds up a personality based on the input it collects and how the ‘Self’ analyzes it. The ‘Me’ is in computer terms the End-user.

The ‘Self’ on the other hand is the CPU, which does all the analyzing and the computing. But this CPU that we calls the ‘Self’ is different from all other cpu’s that we know about, because the ‘Self’ has itself intelligence, which makes it capable of having a dialog with ‘Me’, constantly delivering analyzes and thoughts to it. It is also the ‘Self’ that controls all accesses to the brains different databases.

Even though it is the ‘Me’ that eventually controls the ‘Self’ , the ‘Self’ has a tendency to overpower the ‘Me’. If we don’t learn to control the ‘Self’, it will eventually take over as much control from the ‘Me’ as is can. It’s the way it is designed. It’s job is to constantly analyze and feed the ‘Me’ with all things it has come up with, or to feed the ‘Me’ with thoughts from the past or thoughts from the future. The ‘Self’ is not aware of the ‘Now’. The now is what the ‘Me’ records as a continuing stream of data from the physical world around us, just like a video camera is recording .

If we don’t learn ‘Me’ to control the dialog with the ‘Self’ , we will miss the Now, because the ‘Self’ will always distract the ‘Me’ with the constant flow of internal thoughts about all kind of things. However. If we learn how to ‘interrupt’ and put the ‘Self’ in a permanent state of ‘stand by’ , the ‘Me’ is left in peace to enjoy the Now, and the ‘Me’ can thus choose whenever it wants services from the ‘Self’ .

It is this that I eventually understood and learned . Even though I haven’t mastered the technique fully, I am now at least capable of enjoying the now in long periods at the time every day, giving me great joy and peace.

reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness


Ego, self, body—how many more concepts do we need to add here? I am talking about one thing and one thing only. What is it that calls itself Ego, I, self, and body? You can name yourself whatever you wish, but there is no ego naming itself. Egos do not articulate words, think, or say "I think therefor I am". One could not find an ego if he searched for a million years, yet you would try to do away with it? Do away with what? Egos don't have mouths, don't utter words and articulate them into sentences.

How does thinking get in the way of what is going on? Isn't thinking also going on? Thinking occurs in reality. I think that is a well known fact. Why then, would you "get in the way of what's going on"? For comfort's sake? It is like damming a river merely because we don't enjoy the sight of it, or because the sound of it offends our tastes. Merely another instance of greed and ignorance and vain delusion in my eyes.

It isn't "pure awareness" when an aspect of what it means to be aware is suppressed and done away with. There's nothing pure about negating a natural process that occurs. That is synthetic to the core. What is being promoted here is to cease thought, to "get in the way of what is going on" for comforts sake, to be something other than what we are, to do something other than what we do, because one cannot deal with himself anymore. It's giving up; it's resignation; it's sleep. There is a reason not everyone thinks like children—not everyone is a child. One can only pretend to be a child. One can only pretend that he doesn't think, or that he doesn't articulate what he is thinking. One can only pretend that he is also an ego, a soul, a self, a pure awareness. All synthetic, all self-delusion. No thanks.

To do away with thinking, ego death, or whatever self-negation and asceticism is popular these days—it's like cutting out the eyes so we don't get glaucoma, or removing our kidneys so we don't get kidney stones. Better yet, it is conceptual castration—removing something because we fear what we may do with it. More irrationality and delusion. More self-hatred.

If the Buddhist path is about ending needless suffering and stress, then you should also recommend a full-frontal lobotomy, or Xanax or heavy doses of pain killers, or suicide, because they too have the same effect. If that is what works for you, I wouldn't dare tell you otherwise.

reply to post by helius

The ’Me’ versus the ’Self’ is a strange thing.

There is no such false dichotomy. If there are these two things battling it out, what and where are these two things?

"Me, "self", "I", ego, body, soul—all names and abstractions for one thing and one thing only: that which says "I", "me", "self", ego, body and soul when speaking about himself.

Aphorism
reply to post by helius

 

The ’Me’ versus the ’Self’ is a strange thing.

There is no such false dichotomy. If there are these two things battling it out, what and where are these two things?

"Me, "self", "I", ego, body, soul—all names and abstractions for one thing and one thing only: that which says "I", "me", "self", ego, body and soul when speaking about himself.

I sent you a PM (little white envelope in upper right hand corner..click it)

I remember all this stuff your talking about in Psyco class in college..but was to busy looking at other things to remember most heheh..good stuff you wrote!! I think I get it..