Jump to content


Photo

The True Self―That Which Alone Is Real


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I'm not agnostic. There wasn't a label for my worldeview, so I had to pick one. My worldview: I am You.
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • CA

Posted 18 August 2017 - 11:43 PM

Everything within consciousness is transitory―to perceive change is in the nature of the mind. Yet there must be some changeless background from which change can be perceived―an immutable, immovable source from which the perceived flows from one moment to the next.

 

What is this source?

 

None other than the real you―That which makes the perceivable possible. Words can't describe the real Self, but if I were to try, I'd say I Am pure Being with absolute Awareness manifesting through Love in action. That's as close as I can get with positive affirmations, even though verbalizing what we truly are can never be accurate―for it is a futile endeavor. Describing yourself in negative terms brings you closer to what you are. If I Am not this, and I Am not that, then who am I? Ask yourself.

 

Ponder this question deeply and you will realize that you are not what you perceive yourself to be. How can you be? It is impossible to be what you perceive; and don't you perceive yourself as a person―a bundle of habits, fears, and desires born from memory in a physical body?

 

Know that this is not the real you, but a projection from the Real―the true Self―the Supreme Reality. Reconnect to your true nature and change the world by your mere presence, radiating love and light to all that is. Stop contributing to the pain and suffering by pretending you are person, controlled by the mind and all its fears and selfish desires; and who likes to divide and separate that which is fundamentally indivisible. Be that which is always fresh and always new, that which is Love looking to express itself―that which is Now...the true Self.

 

What more important undertaking could there possibly be other than truly knowing One's Self? There is none, for no other desire can take you beyond the pain of suffering like the desire to Be beyond all desire―knowing how to Be the Self provides this liberation from the mind-body, which is a projection/illusion/dream that most people experience as a cycle of pain and pleasure―always taking to seek pleasure, while fighting to avoid pain.

 

Humans have been perpetuating the cycle of pain and pleasure by immersing themselves in this dualism instead of going deep within themselves to understand who they truly are―to discover their non-dual nature. Stop living by always taking and start living by Being...Love in action, and let your inner light shine―which is everyone's true nature. Understand that it is the mind that obscures and distorts this Truth. Be free from the mind and see reality as it is―by Being it.

 

That is why meditation is so important. It helps you connect and ultimately go beyond the sense "I Am," a sense that is indisputably common to all life―and is our true identity. Once understood, and clarity sets in, the person becomes a vehicle for Love to express itself wherever the body may Be.

 

With no ideas of seperateness, Love pervades, for it is in the nature of the Self to Love the Self―connecting to it's many manefistations through harmony and balance. Awaiting conscious Self realization from those earnest enough to seek Truth and find the Real. (Although, technically, the Self is not just awaiting. It is both awaiting, and not awaiting―yet because it is also beyond both―it is then neither awaiting, nor not-awaiting as well. I know, confusing.)

 

Basically you can't think about and then verbalize what the Self is. The limited can't describe or conceptualize the unlimited. A person can only be free of his imaginings that he takes for reality and stop identifying with them, and Be that which One already is―timeless Being, Self Aware. That which alone is Real.



#2 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 19 August 2017 - 05:07 AM

Personally, I don't find the OP helpful. This might be so for the reason that I don't lack self-awareness.
.

...
Humans have been perpetuating the cycle of pain and pleasure by immersing themselves in this dualism instead of going deep within themselves to understand who they truly are―to discover their non-dual nature. Stop living by always taking and start living by Being...Love in action, and let your inner light shine―which is everyone's true nature. Understand that it is the mind that obscures and distorts this Truth. Be free from the mind and see reality as it is―by Being it.
...

.
At a recent family dinner, with some of my Sister's neighbors in attendance, we discussed another neighbor's recent return of a daughter who spent the last two years on the West coast USA in two colleges, quiting both in succession to, now, take a year off and "find herself" while living with her parent in the town she fleed after high school. I asked, "Where does you go to find that???" (To find one's self.) One woman stiffled a gaffaw and expressed an appreciation of the question. The other adults sitting around seemed to comptemplate the question and they did NOT express any disagreement with my implication.

I repeat: the OP isn't help. Further, I quote the above paragraph for two reasons: One, it comes close to being helpful; Two, it may cause confusion and just might be destructive of a struggling person's efforts to do exactly what the author hopes to achieve. Specifically:
.

Understand that it is the mind that obscures and distorts this Truth. Be free from the mind and see reality as it is―by Being it.

.
Which organ should one employ to discover, "this Truth?" Which organ should one employ to discover any truth? Which organ should one employ to, "see reality as it is?" The suggestion of, "{b}e free from the mind," can't be taken seriously as expressed. I declare that it peddles the obvious, dangerous contradictions I identify by these three questions.

What is true of Western Civilization is that the present-day mode of operation guided by, "Do what feels good, what feels right," promotes the idea that life is motivated by pleasure and pain--maximizing one while minimizing the other.

The author of the OP suggests that I should, "see reality as it is―by Being it." What was the ethos peddled by the cross-dressing, sweet transvestite, from Transexual, Transylvania in The Rocky Horror Picture Show, 1975, as they float and mingle together in a swimming pool?
.

...Swim the warm waters of sins of the flesh
Erotic nightmares beyond any measure
And sensual daydreams to treasure forever
Can't you just see it. Whoa ho ho!
Don't dream it, be it
Don't dream it, be it
Don't dream it, be it
...

.
The OP's conclusion as solution, "by Being it", doesn't make any explicit difference, doesn't make an explicit difference, from the transexual's conclusion and advice, "be it."

An example from the early 1990s of the dangerous, modern ethos is from the successful band Jane's Addiction and their song, Ain't No Right off the album, Ritual De Lo Habitual:
.

...bad wind came, blew down my home.
Now the green grass grows.
Bad wind came, blew down my home.
Goddamn goodness knows!
Where green grass grows there can't be wrong.
And goodness knows, there ain't no right!
Ain't no wrong now, ain't no right.
Ain't no wrong now, ain't no right.
Only pleasure and pain.

(Source)

.
The OP doesn't help anyone who wants to move past the message that the meaning of life is, "Only pleasure and pain."

Ten years later is the example of Hedwig and the Angry Inch--the victim of a botched s@x-change operation. (Link)

#3 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 20 August 2017 - 01:44 AM

I omitted the unacknowledged lyrics that are heard in the introduction to the Jane's Addiction song I referenced. This is the "ethos" that wins the day when there is poor competition provided from the society in which it lives.
.

My s@x and my drugs and my rock and roll

All my brain and body need

My s@x and my drugs and my rock and roll

Are the only thing that keep me here

(Get your *bleeping* pistol out of my *bleeping* face, ...my s@x and my drugs and my rock and roll are my *bleeping* own business....)



#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 August 2017 - 11:14 AM


 

 

 

Philo: knowing how to Be the Self provides this liberation from the mind-body, which is a projection/illusion/dream that most people experience as a cycle of pain and pleasure

 

Not really no - if someone sticks a red hot poker up my bum you better believe I am not dreaming when I say that it hurts. [mc]Should I chant while it happens? "Hot, hot, hot, hot, hot"?[/mc]

 

How can I liberate myself from that which God has made me to be - a living soul. I can't separate myself from my mind and body, [mc]or can you show me the instrument you used?[/mc]

 

Conclusion: My problem is you are basically stating a whole bunch of untestable assertions. Why should I accept they are true over the obvious truth that humans are special because they are persons, living souls made in God's image?

 

It also seems that by saying,  "Words can't describe the real Self," that's obviously a way of not having to defend what you believe. If you can't define this, "real you" that's a nice neat way of not having to defend the notion since nobody knows what the real you is.

 

Lol

 

(mc = mischief content)



#5 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 21 August 2017 - 11:23 AM

...

...
Humans have been perpetuating the cycle of pain and pleasure by immersing themselves in this dualism instead of going deep within themselves to understand who they truly are―to discover their non-dual nature. Stop living by always taking and start living by Being...Love in action, and let your inner light shine―which is everyone's true nature. Understand that it is the mind that obscures and distorts this Truth. Be free from the mind and see reality as it is―by Being it.
...

.
...
.
The OP's conclusion as solution, "by Being it", doesn't make any explicit difference, doesn't make an explicit difference, from the transexual's conclusion and advice, "be it."
...
The OP doesn't help anyone who wants to move past the message that the meaning of life is, "Only pleasure and pain."
...

.
Do you have any reply to my conclusions about the helpfulness of your OP advice?

#6 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I'm not agnostic. There wasn't a label for my worldeview, so I had to pick one. My worldview: I am You.
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • CA

Posted 23 August 2017 - 02:50 AM

 

Schera Do said:

At a recent family dinner, with some of my Sister's neighbors in attendance, we discussed another neighbor's recent return of a daughter who spent the last two years on the West coast USA in two colleges, quiting both in succession to, now, take a year off and "find herself" while living with her parent in the town she fleed after high school. I asked, "Where does you go to find that???" (To find one's self.) One woman stiffled a gaffaw and expressed an appreciation of the question. The other adults sitting around seemed to comptemplate the question and they did NOT express any disagreement with my implication.

 

And what implication might that be?

 

 

I repeat: the OP isn't help. Further, I quote the above paragraph for two reasons: One, it comes close to being helpful; Two, it may cause confusion and just might be destructive of a struggling person's efforts to do exactly what the author hopes to achieve. Specifically:
.

Understand that it is the mind that obscures and distorts this Truth. Be free from the mind and see reality as it is―by Being it.

.
Which organ should one employ to discover, "this Truth?" Which organ should one employ to discover any truth? Which organ should one employ to, "see reality as it is?" The suggestion of, "{b}e free from the mind," can't be taken seriously as expressed. I declare that it peddles the obvious, dangerous contradictions I identify by these three questions.

 

You investigate your mind to go beyond it. The mind is a tool and should be utilized as such, but once the work is done of what use is the tool? Once you know how to Be, free from all the distinction produced by the mind, only then can you "see reality as it is," and not through sensory perception but through direct insight of non-dual awareness.

 

 

What is true of Western Civilization is that the present-day mode of operation guided by, "Do what feels good, what feels right," promotes the idea that life is motivated by pleasure and pain--maximizing one while minimizing the other.

 

A cycle produced by identifying with the mind/body.

 

 

The author of the OP suggests that I should, "see reality as it is―by Being it." What was the ethos peddled by the cross-dressing, sweet transvestite, from Transexual, Transylvania in The Rocky Horror Picture Show, 1975, as they float and mingle together in a swimming pool?
.

...Swim the warm waters of sins of the flesh
Erotic nightmares beyond any measure
And sensual daydreams to treasure forever
Can't you just see it. Whoa ho ho!
Don't dream it, be it
Don't dream it, be it
Don't dream it, be it
...

.
The OP's conclusion as solution, "by Being it", doesn't make any explicit difference, doesn't make an explicit difference, from the transexual's conclusion and advice, "be it."

 

The difference is the transvestite is advising to be the dream, which his/her mind has produced for his/her body's pleasure. While I'm advising to wake up from the dream and stop identifying with the mind that produced it, and Be the Self that is beyond this illusion--which you already are, except that your mind is so convinced by the false reality of dualisms, that it has deceived you into beleiving that your true nature is'nt non-dual. It's a huge explicit difference.

 

 

The OP doesn't help anyone who wants to move past the message that the meaning of life is, "Only pleasure and pain."

 

It helps those earnest enough to delve deeply into their own being to discover another way to Be. You mentioned this didn't help you because you were already self-aware. Well, I ask you: What is this self that you say you are aware of? Who is the real you?

 

 



#7 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 23 August 2017 - 03:32 AM

Schera Do said:
At a recent family dinner, with some of my Sister's neighbors in attendance, we discussed another neighbor's recent return of a daughter who spent the last two years on the West coast USA in two colleges, quiting both in succession to, now, take a year off and "find herself" while living with her parent in the town she fleed after high school. I asked, "Where does you go to find that???" (To find one's self.) One woman stiffled a gaffaw and expressed an appreciation of the question. The other adults sitting around seemed to comptemplate the question and they did NOT express any disagreement with my implication.


And what implication might that be?
...

.
I don't believe that is a serious question. Therefore, I won't answer the insincere question.
.

Schera Do said:...

The author of the OP suggests that I should, "see reality as it is―by Being it." What was the ethos peddled by the cross-dressing, sweet transvestite, from Transexual, Transylvania in The Rocky Horror Picture Show, 1975, as they float and mingle together in a swimming pool?
.

...Swim the warm waters of sins of the flesh
Erotic nightmares beyond any measure
And sensual daydreams to treasure forever
Can't you just see it. Whoa ho ho!
Don't dream it, be it
Don't dream it, be it
Don't dream it, be it
...

.
The OP's conclusion as solution, "by Being it", doesn't make any explicit difference, doesn't make an explicit difference, from the transexual's conclusion and advice, "be it."

.
The difference is the transvestite is advising to be the dream, which his/her mind has produced for his/her body's pleasure. While I'm advising to wake up from the dream and stop identifying with the mind that produced it, and Be the Self that is beyond this illusion--which you already are, except that your mind is so convinced by the false reality of dualisms, that it has deceived you into beleiving that your true nature is'nt non-dual. It's a huge explicit difference.
...

.
Your advice won't help. I'm sure for the reason that it has not helped. My evidence for that is the present state of Western Civilization and the current trajectory down the toilet. The conclusion is that it will not be of any help in future.
.

Schera Do said:
The OP doesn't help anyone who wants to move past the message that the meaning of life is, "Only pleasure and pain."

.
It helps those earnest enough to delve deeply into their own being to discover another way to Be. ...

.
When I read your advice, the idea of cutting off my head seems like a viable solution.

#8 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I'm not agnostic. There wasn't a label for my worldeview, so I had to pick one. My worldview: I am You.
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • CA

Posted 23 August 2017 - 04:42 AM

 

 

 

Philo: knowing how to Be the Self provides this liberation from the mind-body, which is a projection/illusion/dream that most people experience as a cycle of pain and pleasure

 

Not really no - if someone sticks a red hot poker up my bum you better believe I am not dreaming when I say that it hurts. [mc]Should I chant while it happens? "Hot, hot, hot, hot, hot"?[/mc]

 

 

Pain in a dream says nothing about the reality beyond the dream. If you control an avatar in a computer simulation and someone sticks a hot poker up it's bum, and you see it jumping around screaming in pain, does that make the avatar's world somehow not imaginary?

 

 

How can I liberate myself from that which God has made me to be - a living soul. I can't separate myself from my mind and body, [mc]or can you show me the instrument you used?[/mc]

 

 

God's creative power comes from the Self, from a source which he did not create--because it always is. You are this creative power, the Self, which has manifested into a mind/body, a manifestation which will not limit you only when you have not identified with it. To be free of the mind/body, quiet the mind and dwell in the sense "I AM" until your awareness goes beyond it into your natural state of Being.

 

 

Conclusion: My problem is you are basically stating a whole bunch of untestable assertions. Why should I accept they are true over the obvious truth that humans are special because they are persons, living souls made in God's image?

 

In what way are my assertions untestable? You are the test and the tester. I say wake up from the dream by investigating your being, and by pondering your true nature by inquiring deep within. There is nothing there that you can't do. Question everything you have thought yourself to be up to this point, and ask yourself, what is truly real: that which is temporary, or that which is permanent? Then find in you that which is permanent by disregarding all that which is temporary, and discover you are the awareness of timeless being--and know that God is, because you are.

 

 

It also seems that by saying,  "Words can't describe the real Self," that's obviously a way of not having to defend what you believe. If you can't define this, "real you" that's a nice neat way of not having to defend the notion since nobody knows what the real you is.

 

When I say word can't describe the real Self, that is not an evasion tactic, but a hard fact. When all words and concepts originate from within the Self, how can they be used to describe that which contains them? There is no point of reference outside the Self that can be used to describe the Self, when the Self is the only point of reference there is. Of what use are definitions, which by their very nature reduce reality to distinct things to be known by the mind, when the Self is not a distinct thing seperate from other things. But rather, the Self is all things--but because it also beyond being a thing as well--it is no thing at the same time. Thus thinking about how to reach the Self through defintions and symbolic representsation will only take you further from it. A quiet mind is paramount for Being the Self.

 

Even though words can't reach the Real Self, that doesn't mean you can't. Rid yourself of all the wrong ideas you have about yourself and Be that which you already are, free to be an expression of love in the Moment without the hangups and limitations of being a person--and see your work is done--for there is nothing more to do once your true nature has been realised, for everything will look after itself.



#9 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 August 2017 - 04:54 AM

 

 

philosophik: While I'm advising to wake up from the dream and stop identifying with the mind that produced it, and Be the Self that is beyond this illusion--which you already are, except that your mind is so convinced by the false reality of dualisms, that it has deceived you into beleiving that your true nature is'nt non-dual.

 

But what does that even mean? Who is to say his mind is convincing him of duality? That is your claim. You believe we all think of ourselves as a dualism.

 

Okay. Fine. You can believe that but have your proven it? You don't seem to want to prove anything - you just re-preach your creed and expect acceptance.

 

But where is your evidence it's true? Do we have anything more to go on that what you say as some sort of creed? To my mind you either accept a creed as true by believing it is or you don't. The problem with philosophy is that sometimes it takes an aspect of truth then says, "because this philosophy can teach you this truth therefore the philosophy is true."

 

So you can take an aspect of humanity, then brand it as your philosophy. Evil acts, good acts, sin and righteousness, you then take it and explain that it is X, and because you can explain it in that way you then declare that you have the correct belief.

 

But I'm asking you to consider what God in His word has said about these things. Sin is real and compels people to do great harm. Think now if each person was filled with the love of God which can only come through Christ! Would people be starving? No. Would there be wars? No. 

 

It seems to me you are saying that we should pretend sin and evil isn't real but rather "we are real" and this will stop us from sinning. But if sin and evil aren't real then it seems you're also saying they don't matter. They don't matter and yet your belief leads you to love, and a lack of sin?

 

A contradiction. For why would it lead to one side of the duality you have abandoned? :gotcha:

 

So you define duality as false but then say your belief leads to a lack of evil, and leads to love? Why? If love is the answer then your premise that good and evil can't be separated, is false, because you should conclude that your belief can lead you to hate and war and anger and murder, etc....why can't your belief lead to that if those things are equal?

 

Conclusion; you are kidding yourself, IMHO - by pretending sin isn't real, yet notice you say your belief will lead to a lack of sin! Better to acknowledge reality - that we are all sinners and need a saviour. Too late to hijack love - God got the patent on that long before your philosophlegm;

 

"But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him." What is to keep His word? To believe in Jesus Christ and do as He says...."For God is love". 

 

(See, we have everything already, the love of God - and a true hope for eternal life. What does your philosophy offer that it could possibly add to such a thing? Nothing - for it is a belief that sits in a vacuum and ultimately is only a guide for this temporary life, and no more.

 

"For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal."

 

We have eternal life, of an eternal value, a, "better country", we know why we exist, because God exists.

 

What does your philosophy offer really, in comparison the the true God and Jesus Christ the Saviour? Nothing. I don't say this to offend you, but because you too can come to realise a far more meaningful message than your message, which is ultimately mankinds ATTEMPT to figure out truth for himself, from his limited resources, but "God's understanding is unfathomable."

 

 

 

Philo: , and ask yourself, what is truly real: that which is temporary, or that which is permanent? Then find in you that which is permanent by disregarding all that which is temporary, and discover you are the awareness of timeless being--and know that God is, because you are.

 

Yes, yes, ...But this is arrogant presumption - for I already know these things, they were written in the bible before you made up your philosophy. Just because you mention these things doesn't mean they come from your philosophy.

 

The bible says; "for the things which are seen are temporary but the things which are not seen are eternal". I already know we have a spirit, but we are made as triune beings, spirit, soul and flesh, while we live we are in the body, the body is as a garment. We have scriptures which explain we will receive a new body, a glorified body. 

 

Which proves that I don't need to be taught your philosophy in order to know these things, for our hope is in an eternal home, dwelling with God, the "home of righteousness" the "better country" as Hebrews 11 tells us.

 

No doubt you will now say, "I agree" as though the bible is agreeing with you, but you are just stamping your brand on all of these subjects. But God has told us all of these things before you were ever born.

 

So then I can take the parts of what you say, but not the conclusion. For sin is real, our bodies are real, pain and suffering is real and it's an insult to those who do suffer to call it a dream.



#10 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 23 August 2017 - 06:02 AM

Philo: knowing how to Be the Self provides this liberation from the mind-body, which is a projection/illusion/dream that most people experience as a cycle of pain and pleasure


Not really no - if someone sticks a red hot poker up my bum you better believe I am not dreaming when I say that it hurts. [mc]Should I chant while it happens? "Hot, hot, hot, hot, hot"?[/mc]


Pain in a dream says nothing about the reality beyond the dream. If you control an avatar in a computer simulation ... ?
...

.
What is the difference between this dream and the one you reference in your answer in post #6 on this page? That answer from #6 is, with my emphasis added:
.

...
The difference is the transvestite is advising to be the dream, which his/her mind has produced for his/her body's pleasure. While I'm advising to wake up from the dream and stop identifying with the mind that produced it, and Be the Self that is beyond this illusion--which you already are, except that your mind is so convinced by the false reality of dualisms, that it has deceived you into beleiving that your true nature is'nt non-dual. It's a huge explicit difference.
...

.
Further, your statement, "{p}ain in a dream says nothing about the reality beyond the dream," is false when it does comport with reality. This is additional evidence that I am correct that your advice is--to be kind--not helpful.

Lastly, which organ does one employ to get an accurate assessment of "reality beyond the dream." You should know that your reply--or lack thereof--to this question will determine when I will stop reading your posts.

#11 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 August 2017 - 10:25 AM

Philosophik, thanks for spending the time expounding your philosophy, I hope my posts didn't annoy you. I am not attacking you yourself, I know you are trying to explain your own position, if you are "being kind" like Schera says, I can appreciate you mean well by sharing what you yourself have found to be your personal truth.

 

When I respond with a certain ferocity, shall we say, that is because don't forget, we have been Christians for a long time. I have been following God since about 1999 or thereabouts, and it is a long journey of faith. You may speak to a Christian like me thinking I have never had any deep thoughts but I have obviously studied the bible throughout the years, and my own personal journey has led me to experience things that can only truly affirm the truth of the gospel and the Lord's existence. I know you just talk to people, and that is all you know, just some usernames on a screen but my own journey of faith is very deep, I myself have been taken by God, through some very dark valleys, and what I have learnt can't be undone by, what I am sorry to say, from my perspective, is ultimately a fairly tenuous and shallow philosophy, given my sacrifices, and very difficult circumstances. 

 

So from my perspective it is as though I have been taking part in a marathon only to be told, "you think that was an athletic event, then try this egg and spoon race."

 

There is no offence meant in it, but obviously the meaning of Christianity is very great and deep, compared to the worlds rather shallow philosophies.



#12 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 24 August 2017 - 12:58 AM

There may be some confusion about a few things.

When I write, "I'm being kind." It means one and only one thing: A euphemism has been used. Further, "I'm being kind," is itself a euphemism for, "I've used a less-hurtful approach, for reasons known but undisclosed."

I've been a member of an organization, since 1985, of people who have adopted a spiritual approach to life, some religious, some not; I attend an average of 4 days per week, with some years on a daily basis. This began in 1979, but had several years not in the company of such people from 1982 to mid-1985. I don't get paid, if you're wondering.

When I opined that the OP--and subsequent additions--are not helpful, it has been from all those years "in the trenches", to use an expression, during which I have observed what works and what does not.

The suggestions found in the OP are empty and one can expect deep confusion and, possibly, harm, if one attempts to use those suggestions while in distress. Do I think the author of the OP has been successful affecting improvements in his personal life using whatever methods he may have in mind? I do not, but he has not asserted such a thing.

Let me be even more clear: The nebulous content found in the OP give zero help for those who wish to remain members of civil society--those who wish to retreat to a cave and renounce their families, friends and co-workers, should be encouraged to print-out the OP and take it to the cave. Good luck to you.

#13 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I'm not agnostic. There wasn't a label for my worldeview, so I had to pick one. My worldview: I am You.
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • CA

Posted 26 August 2017 - 01:48 AM

 

 

Schera Do said:
At a recent family dinner, with some of my Sister's neighbors in attendance, we discussed another neighbor's recent return of a daughter who spent the last two years on the West coast USA in two colleges, quiting both in succession to, now, take a year off and "find herself" while living with her parent in the town she fleed after high school. I asked, "Where does you go to find that???" (To find one's self.) One woman stiffled a gaffaw and expressed an appreciation of the question. The other adults sitting around seemed to comptemplate the question and they did NOT express any disagreement with my implication.


And what implication might that be?
...

 

.
I don't believe that is a serious question. Therefore, I won't answer the insincere question.
 

 

The reason I ask is because you highlighted the fact that the other adults did not express any disagreement with your implication like it was some huge point, and if your implication was the obvious--that one needs not go anywhere to find themselves--then what of it? Do you know what one is finding when they are looking for themselves?

 

Typically when someone says they need to find themselves they are talking about figuring out what kind of person they want to become. When I speak of finding the Self, I am talking about disregarding the person (and all it's wrong ideas it has about it'self) and Being what's left--that which alone is Real. So which implication was it again?

 

 

Your advice won't help. I'm sure for the reason that it has not helped. My evidence for that is the present state of Western Civilization and the current trajectory down the toilet. The conclusion is that it will not be of any help in future.
.

 

How could you possibly know who is helped and who is not when you live in your own personal little world and can't see beyond it? Your attitude is like the child who doesn't have the forsight to see how a few seeds can become a mighty forest; and how that forest can benefit all life on this planet. The child is adament that the work helps no one, and points to an empty field where the seeds were just planted and says "See, nothing. I told you that this helps no one." The child convinced he is right, runs inside and closes the door to his mind and turns on the TV--to see what he wants to see. Convincing himself that what he sees on TV is real.

 

Meanwhile, the seasons pass and the roots take, sprouting into a lush forest and enriching the air with oxygen making life vibrant--even the child's. Despite being unaware of what has emerged in real life, the child still benifits even though he is immersed in the programming of his choosing. So like the child, just because you are unaware of how it helps, it doesn't mean it doesn't help.



#14 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I'm not agnostic. There wasn't a label for my worldeview, so I had to pick one. My worldview: I am You.
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • CA

Posted 26 August 2017 - 03:51 AM

 

 

 

philosophik: While I'm advising to wake up from the dream and stop identifying with the mind that produced it, and Be the Self that is beyond this illusion--which you already are, except that your mind is so convinced by the false reality of dualisms, that it has deceived you into beleiving that your true nature is'nt non-dual.

 

But what does that even mean? Who is to say his mind is convincing him of duality? That is your claim. You believe we all think of ourselves as a dualism.

 

Okay. Fine. You can believe that but have your proven it? You don't seem to want to prove anything - you just re-preach your creed and expect acceptance.

 

 

Mike don't you see the very language you use and the way you express your veiw of reality is dualitic to the core. Your world is a play of opposites where there is good vs. evil, self vs. environement, future vs. past, inner vs. outer. A world where you as the person are in the universe, but the universe is not you. A world full of distinctions, things to be named by shape and appearance and to be known by the mind. Yours is a world where God's creations are not God because the two (this is thinking yourself as a dualism) are seperate. Is there anything you disagree with here?

 

 

But where is your evidence it's true? Do we have anything more to go on that what you say as some sort of creed? To my mind you either accept a creed as true by believing it is or you don't. The problem with philosophy is that sometimes it takes an aspect of truth then says, "because this philosophy can teach you this truth therefore the philosophy is true."

 

On the quantumn level the universe is one unified field of energy with no actual distinctions--it is when there is a perceiver who "thinks" that there are, that the world of things 'appears' to be. That suggests that the universe is One in essence, and not a collection of separate things as it appears in the mind. If the transformation of percepetions into the idea that things exists is purely a mental process, then stopping this mental process will help you Be that essence. It is not a philosophy. It is not a belief. It is Being what you are.

 

 

It seems to me you are saying that we should pretend sin and evil isn't real but rather "we are real" and this will stop us from sinning. But if sin and evil aren't real then it seems you're also saying they don't matter. They don't matter and yet your belief leads you to love, and a lack of sin?

 

A contradiction. For why would it lead to one side of the duality you have abandoned? :gotcha:

 

You imagine a world full of things and people, create problems by imposing dualisms like good vs. evil onto that which is fundementally non-dual, and then complain about it. If you knew your Self this would not be a problem. When the Self is Love only, where is there room for evil and sin? Where is the duality?

 

In my world, I see my Self in everything because everything is my Self, and I love all. Even those which you consider evil because they are not seperate from me--plus what does your ideas of good and evil, sin and virtue, have to do with 'that' which is beyond ideas, but at the same time ever present to witness them--the Self? Absolutely nothing. They are nothing more than concepts that describe an imaginary world in which the Self has not realised it's true nature and identifies with what he perceives.

 

 

What does your philosophy offer really, in comparison the the true God and Jesus Christ the Saviour? Nothing. I don't say this to offend you, but because you too can come to realise a far more meaningful message than your message, which is ultimately mankinds ATTEMPT to figure out truth for himself, from his limited resources, but "God's understanding is unfathomable."

 

How does Being what you are equate to a philosophy? How can anything be more meaningful than truly knowing what you are and how to Be it? You say my message is mankinds attempt to find truth, yet I have said I am not a person, and by realising that my very 'searching' for truth kept me from finding it, I stopped looking and started Being. I AM--is truth, there's no need to search for it because it's where your at. I am not a mind or body, but I witness them like I witness a sunset. They are phenomena within my awareness that I perceieve, but I don't identify with them because I know they depend on me to exist and they are APPEARANCES only. I don't worry about the world of appearances because it is transient and has no real being. Only that which makes the world of appearances perceivable has being, and I Am 'that.'



#15 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 26 August 2017 - 05:19 AM

Schera Do said:
At a recent family dinner, with some of my Sister's neighbors in attendance, we discussed another neighbor's recent return of a daughter who spent the last two years on the West coast USA in two colleges, quiting both in succession to, now, take a year off and "find herself" while living with her parent in the town she fleed after high school. I asked, "Where does you go to find that???" (To find one's self.) One woman stiffled a gaffaw and expressed an appreciation of the question. The other adults sitting around seemed to comptemplate the question and they did NOT express any disagreement with my implication.


And what implication might that be?
...

.
I don't believe that is a serious question. Therefore, I won't answer the insincere question.


The reason I ask is because you highlighted the fact that the other adults did not express any disagreement with your implication like it was some huge point, and if your implication was the obvious--that one needs not go anywhere to find themselves--then what of it? Do you know what one is finding when they are looking for themselves?

Typically when someone says they need to find themselves they are talking about figuring out what kind of person they want to become. When I speak of finding the Self, I am talking about disregarding the person (and all it's wrong ideas it has about it'self) and Being what's left--that which alone is Real. So which implication was it again?

Your advice won't help. I'm sure for the reason that it has not helped. My evidence for that is the present state of Western Civilization and the current trajectory down the toilet. The conclusion is that it will not be of any help in future.
.


How could you possibly know who is helped and who is not when you live in your own personal little world and can't see beyond it? Your attitude is like the child who doesn't have the forsight to see how a few seeds can become a mighty forest; and how that forest can benefit all life on this planet. The child is adament that the work helps no one, and points to an empty field where the seeds were just planted and says "See, nothing. I told you that this helps no one." The child convinced he is right, runs inside and closes the door to his mind and turns on the TV--to see what he wants to see. Convincing himself that what he sees on TV is real.

Meanwhile, the seasons pass and the roots take, sprouting into a lush forest and enriching the air with oxygen making life vibrant--even the child's. Despite being unaware of what has emerged in real life, the child still benifits even though he is immersed in the programming of his choosing. So like the child, just because you are unaware of how it helps, it doesn't mean it doesn't help.

.
No...no. Yes? NO! Is it Chance? Mr. Chance, from Being There? I think I recognize your attitude. Yes that's what comes to mind.

We both know that you know what's implied...wait. Could it be that you don't know? Let's look at one part up close:
.

...if your implication was the obvious--that one needs not go anywhere to find themselves--then what of it? Do you know what one is finding when they are looking for themselves?

.
The thing about leaving one place and going to another to, "find yourself," is that you bring yourself with you. Your words are empty, which brings me to another point. When I read this:
.

I am talking about disregarding the person ... and Being what's left--that which alone is Real.

.
I think about the hole in the doughnut. Nobody wants to be the hole in the doughnut--except, possibly, the cave-dweller.

I've got my eye on entry #6 of the list. It could be yours....

#16 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 August 2017 - 07:08 AM

 

 

Philosophik: Mike don't you see the very language you use and the way you express your veiw of reality is dualitic to the core. Your world is a play of opposites where there is good vs. evil, self vs. environement, future vs. past, inner vs. outer. A world where you as the person are in the universe, but the universe is not you. A world full of distinctions, things to be named by shape and appearance and to be known by the mind. Yours is a world where God's creations are not God because the two (this is thinking yourself as a dualism) are seperate. Is there anything you disagree with here?

 

The trick with this rhetoric is to MERGE that which I am forced to agree with and duality. Obviously I make distinctions but this isn't dualism. For example with your examples I don't think in those binary terms, the world isn't black and white but sometimes nuanced with greys. For example you say "future versus past" so as to force a duality but there is actually future, past and present. You say "good versus evil" but I don't see that in the real world, for there is good and evil but also there are acts which are neither. As for "inner and outer", I actually see boundaries and fine, nuances, for example there is the level of biochemistry, but then there is the anatomy, but then our body has an outer but also a boundary then an inner, then more boundaries and more inners.

 

So I don't think you can say that I see all things as this binary duality. I simply see things for what they are. 

 

So your argument is this; "if you don't disagree with these things therefore you believe what I say you do about the world." But not really, I don't see things as dualisms. I don't even see any battle of good versus evil in the sense that Satan is no competition. Silly people see evil as equal with good, not understanding that evil is only a perverted version of good. So there is no duality except in the sense that evil is the opposite of good. To value all acts as equal is to betray our knowledge of morality. 

 

Are you saying cruelly beating a person to death for fun is equal to caring for them? Essentially you are which is why you indeed do have a philosophy.

 

 

 

Philosophik: On the quantumn level the universe is one unified field of energy with no actual distinctions--it is when there is a perceiver who "thinks" that there are, that the world of things 'appears' to be. That suggests that the universe is One in essence, and not a collection of separate things as it appears in the mind.

 

Yes but the clue is in the word, "uni-verse" which means "united diverse". If someone chops off my finger, because my finger is not me, I can carry on living. There is a unity but this does not preclude diversity.

 

In the same way you could say that on the micro-level all parts of a plane are non-flying, but could you conclude therefore that a plane as a whole is a non-flying thing? So I would say you commit the fallacy of composition here, by not realising that there is more than one level to reality. You "perceive" how the universe is unified but you reject how the universe is diverse, not realising that there is no contradiction, for you can have both diversity, and unity. 

 

In this way God is not the universe, and I am not God. But I am part of God's family, and I am part of the universe. In the same way a plane's wheel is not a plane but it is part of a plane and does function as a unified whole but that doesn't mean that the wheel is the plane.

 

 

 

Philosophik: How does Being what you are equate to a philosophy? How can anything be more meaningful than truly knowing what you are and how to Be it? 

 

Because I have to agree with some beliefs you have expounded, therefore it is a philosophy; this comment I have quoted is begging-the-question, because I can know who I am without believing the following;

 

- I am God

- pain doesn't exist.

- I am the universe, and "one" with everything.

 

For if God is one with everything and all people then God would be Jack The Ripper meaning on judgement day God would go to hell.

 

If you are God you would know everything. Your posts suggest you aren't even aware of fallacious argumentation. :P

 

 

 

 

Philosophik: How does Being what you are equate to a philosophy? How can anything be more meaningful than truly knowing what you are and how to Be it? 

 

But you are saying a lot, lot more than that. You have a set of beliefs which says that if you find "you" it means you have to now believe you are God, that God is the universe that we are the universe and that it is equal to cruelly beat someone to death as it is to be kind to them.

 

Yes indeed you do have a philosophy, even if you aren't aware of it. And a dangerous one at that, the New Testament warns us to not listen to.

 
 

 

 

Philosophik: Even those which you consider evil because they are not seperate from me--plus what does your ideas of good and evil, sin and virtue, have to do with 'that' which is beyond ideas, but at the same time ever present to witness them--the Self? Absolutely nothing. They are nothing more than concepts that describe an imaginary world i

 

No the sinful nature is reality, and I didn't invent what the bible teaches us, it was written thousands of years ago and accurately describes the state of man. If you reject Christianity that's fine, but don't pretend I invented it as though sin is some minor matter to a Christian, some trick he is playing on himself. Christ came to wipe away our sin, that is what the cross is all about. Did I invent that too?



#17 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 26 August 2017 - 11:01 AM

Does anyone like apples?

#18 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 28 August 2017 - 11:40 AM

From Carl G. Jung's The Undiscovered Self, 1957, 1958, translated and revised by R.F.C. Hull, pages 141-142. The reason for posting it should be obvious.
.

... In spite of our proud domination of nature we are still her victims as much as ever and have not even learnt to control our own nature, which slowly and inevitably courts disaster.

There are no longer any gods whom we can invoke to help us. The great religions of the world suffer from increasing anaemia, because the helpful numina have fled from the woods, rivers, mountains, and the God-men have disapeared underground into the unconscious. ... "We have conquered nature" is a mere slogan. In reality we are confronted with anxious questions, the answers to which seem nowhere in sight. ... It remains quite natural for men to quarrel and fight and struggle for superiority over one another. Where indeed have we "conquered nature"?

As any change must begin somewhere, it is the single individual who will undergo it and carry it through. The change must begin with one individual; it might be any one of us. Nobody can afford to look around and to wait for somebody else to do what he is loathe to do himself. As nobody knows what he could do, he might be bold enough to ask himself whether by any chance his unconscious might know something helpful, when there is no satisfactory conscious answer anywhere in sight. Man today is painfully aware of the fact that neither his great religions nor his various philosophies seem to provide him with those powerful ideas that would give him the certainty and security he needs in face of the present condition of the world.

I know that the Buddhists would say, as indeed they do: if only people would follow the noble eightfold path of the Dharma (doctrine, law) and had true insight into the Self; or the Christian: if only people had the right faith in the Lord; or the rationalists: if only people could be intelligent and reasonable--then all problems would be manageable and solvable. The trouble is that none of them manages to solve these problems himself. Christians often ask why God does not speak to them, as he is believed to have done in former daays. When I hear such questions, it always makes me think of the Rabbi who was asked how it could be that God often showed himself to people in the olden days but that nowadays one no longer saw him. The Rabbi replied: "Nor is there anyone nowadays who could stoop so low."

The answer hits the nail on the head. We are so captivated by and entangled in our subjective consciousness that we have simply forgotten the age-old fact that God speaks chiefly through dreams and visions. The Buddhist discards the world of conscious fantasies as "distractions" and useless illusions; the Christian puts his Church and Bible between himself and his unconscious; and the rationalist intellectual does not yet know that his unconscious is not his total psyche, in spite of the fact that for more than seventy years the unconscious has been a basic scientific concept that is indispensable to any serious student of psychology.
...

.
--------------Edit-----------

There is always the problem of translation.

#19 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 28 August 2017 - 01:30 PM

 

 

I know that the Buddhists would say, as inded they do: if only people would follow the noble eightfold path of the Dharma (doctrine, law) and had true insight into the Self; or the Christian: if only people had the right faith in the Lord; or the rationalists: if only people could be intelligent and reasonable--then all problems would be manageable and solvable.

 

This is the classic example of a type of rhetoric people use, they make beliefs seems equal by noting something each typically says as though the typical and insufficient thing each says makes all equal. Basically it misrepresents what those believers would say.

 

Example; "I know what the Tumblety's will say, that Tumblety was Jack the Ripper because of his violence, and I know what those who say it's the queen's physician will say, that it was precision cuts to the anatomy, showing experience in cutting bodies. And I know what those who support that other suspect will say, that when he died the murders stopped."

 

The error is to presume that because each offers a similarly typical notion that none of them are valid. But in reality this doesn't change that it might have been one of those suspects.

 

CONCLUSION; That belief X, P and Y don't "give us enough to go on" doesn't mean that;

1. They are equal as beliefs.

2. They are false.

 

Neither does one necessarily rule out the other - for example, I can reason to a high level even though I am Christian. I employ reason but I can also employ Christian belief.

 

Think over what God has said to some of these questions in scripture, it seems the author is unaware of those answers;

 

For example;

 

 

 

Man today is painfully aware of the fact that neither his great religions nor his various philosophies seem to provide him with those powerful ideas that would give him the certainty and security he needs in face of the present condition of the world.

 

That simply isn't true. Christ said in this world we would have trouble, but He has overcome the world, meaning there is no certainty in this temporary realm. Therefore Christianity matches with reality - God is not saying "you will have a fairytale ending and live happily ever after until you die." No, what he said was this; "he who loses his life for the sake of the gospel, will find it."

 

What about the problems with the condition of the world? We are told why it is this way and God tells us how the sinful nature prevails, that the, "present system of things" is temporary, that, "the things which are seen are temporary but the things which are not seen are eternal."

 

Conclusion; I hate it when people make out that God doesn't give answers to things by misleading people by only focusing on one useless thing a Christian might say such as, "just trust in the Lord", as though that is the only answer God gives to these issues. Your author does this out of ignorance, because he doesn't actually know that the Lord has provided answers for us. But the kingdom of God is about a "better country" as Hebrews 11 says - it isn't about this world, and our security in it. For "this world and it's desires are passing away but he who does the will of God will abide forever."

 

So did Jung consider these things while speaking junk jung?

 

:gotcha:



#20 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 29 August 2017 - 11:25 AM

God's creative power comes from the Self, . . .

you might be closer to the truth than you realize.

in my opinion, gods boredom prompted him to create life along with its perpetual variety but he had to sacrifice his place to do it.
he instilled in each of us the ability to affect the direction of our species.
enough of us working together can accomplish miracles, is that a true statement?

- my opinion.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users