No-separation and the straw-self

[Moondance]

Stop for a moment and do nothing… very soon the momentum of existence will reveal itself… this event of Life simply happening - apparent at all points and at all scales of the cosmos. It is enigmatic to human cognition - not because there is anything supernatural about it (although it might be said to be preternatural) but because its deepest nature is beyond the limitations of human comprehension.

It presents as an ineffable power, creativity and intelligence - effortlessly producing black holes, repairing cells and DNA, converting light into sugar, creating the orbital energy of the electron and the poetry of Rumi.

Nothing stands apart from it - yet it arises as endless variation, individuation, uniqueness and wonder. It is conceiving you*/creating you, sustaining you, directing you, determining you, realising you… and yet the mind identifies as a separate, enduring and immutable form within this event of Life. Waking up to no-separation is waking up from this habitual dream of separation to the simplicity of just THIS… as it is.

And although the body-mind-matrix is the apparent locus of experience (experience happens here) and we conventionally ascribe sovereign functionality to it, it is not other than the movement and actualisation of this radiant principle which knows no separation.



* The ‘you’ in question is the (so-called) ‘conventional self’ which is synonymous with this body-mind-matrix that I think of as me. As can be discovered on inspection, it is not a separate, enduring entity, it’s closer to an activity which is impermanent and without inherent existence - arising ever-fresh in each (now) moment as a (relatively consistent) matrix of perceptions, feelings and thoughts.

[Unseeking Seeker]

***

Non ego self presence, one with Oneness

***

[Lord_Viskey]

"Self-presence" always exists somewhere, on some plane of awareness. The trick is in melding with that state of mind, rather than witnessing the self as an object against, or in contrast to it. The talent then, I suppose, is in choosing the state of awareness one wishes to meld with, and effortlessly moving into, or out of, that "context" at a whim.

Where did I fail ?

Once, I took an ill-fated mind trip on the adventure of discovering reality. I wasn't interested anymore, in just "going with the flow". I wanted to observe the inner workings; the mechanics of reality - in their esoteric sense of the word.

With physics and materialism aside, I found that it was composed of a myriad "absolutes", and a myriad more "infinities" everywhere I looked. Pick a thought; an object ; any artifact at all - and there you have another dualism - another "thing" in order to "pass along its information" to another reader, another listener, another pondering soul. Yet, I found that in order to do so, I would have to work with symbols anyway - those "false" objects of reality. I came to the conclusion that it cannot be spoken about; it cannot be pointed to; yet sense and sensibility demands that they are "separate" entities from the self, and therefor identifiable in some way - as something in contrast to what I am.

Do you merge with that entity ? Do you take it over, or possess it like it is your own - in order to study, or to own it, or understand it - if for only one glimmering moment of new awareness? That doesn't seem fair to the other entity, that other "awareness" thing. That other object. And so this begs the question, "what right do I have to hijack my self, my object, if it is the creation of another, higher intelligence?"

I know there is an "Absolute Intelligent Source" behind all of this. I presumed that this Absolute could never be pointed at, for we all swim - we are all "engulfed" by it. there is no escape. Only adventure. Only movement. The Absolute is like the Universe - or "as" the universe itself... There is no edge, no distinguishing factor to point at. Its all encompassing, and inescapable. Yet it is certain that an intelligence has organized all things into a specific arrangement - perhaps merely for the sake of diversity ... yes? Never-the-less, this arrangement always "functions" - the proof is in its "perpetual" motions.

At any rate, my journey entailed loosing myself in the esoteric workings of reality, and I found strings and threads to follow - all leading from the self; my "self" ; "itself", to the depths of oblivion. The threads became finer and finer, and branched endlessly away from one another, into more and more "possibilities" for "nature" to choose from - as an outcome; as an option for "self-presence" to experience.

Infinities and absolutes ; each thread was an absolute leading from the absolute of myself. Yet each thread lead away from me, my mind. But my "rationalizations" chased after them. I was the little boy chasing his "run away" doggy; or after the last person I had hoped would be my friend. Chasing dreams. Chasing infinitudes and absolutes into a momentary grasping of their purpose overall.

The farther I could observe those "farther away" ends of the thread, the fuzzier they grew. Absolutes branch off into infinities of their own!

I gather that absolute certainty is housed by my soul, while the infinitudes of possibility are those "vacuous voids" that suck us in; that pull us into the motions of reality. One cannot just pause and reflect, and expect, in the aftermath, to recite a poetic story or attribute about it.

One can only be. Only exist. How then, can one choose their course, this way? How then, does one "not separate" from their own "straw-self" ?

Burning the straw makes it an object separate from the self, but to be the non-separated, one must become the fire.

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by Lord_Viskey

"Self-presence" always exists somewhere, on some plane of awareness. The trick is in melding with that state of mind, rather than witnessing the self as an object against, or in contrast to it. The talent then, I suppose, is in choosing the state of awareness one wishes to meld with, and effortlessly moving into, or out of, that "context" at a whim.

Where did I fail ?

Wonderful account. Poetic and somewhat trippy - but very enjoyable to read. “One must become the fire.” Yes! There was only ever the fire - no matter how it appeared/appears. Thanks for sharing, Lord Viskey.

[God-Like]

Hi M.D.

At your request ..


You said ..

Just stop… and sit… and wait… and maybe it might dawn. Life is simply happening on its own - no one is doing it… IT is doing you.


You therefore implied by what you said that life is the instigator of what happens to you. You made a distinction between what you identify as being 'you' and what you identified life being.

If they are the same thing for use of a better word then life would not be the instigator nor would it be something different from what you are.

I asked you what the relationship was between what you are and what is life.

I asked you if life is what you are?

I had no direct answers to these direct questions.





x daz x

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by God-Like

I had no direct answers to these direct questions.

Hi GL

This issue had been explored and explained several times in previous comments. The fact is that you either didn’t agree or understand and so you presented the same material reworded several times and because of the increasing circularity of the conversation I simply referred you to previous answers. (This is documented and can be found in the Buddhism section under the ‘Anatta (no self)’ thread from page 8 onwards.)

In the following post I will respond to these questions again - hopefully in language that is accessible. Let’s see if we can avoid the circularity this time around.

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by God-Like

You said ..

Just stop… and sit… and wait… and maybe it might dawn. Life is simply happening on its own - no one is doing it… IT is doing you.


You therefore implied by what you said that life is the instigator of what happens to you. You made a distinction between what you identify as being 'you' and what you identified life being.

If they are the same thing for use of a better word then life would not be the instigator nor would it be something different from what you are.

I asked you what the relationship was between what you are and what is life.

I asked you if life is what you are?

Hi GL

Let’s put aside what you think I implied and deal with the question.

I said: “Life is simply happening on its own - no one is doing it… IT is doing you.”

You say: I asked you what the relationship was between what you are and what is life. I asked you if life is what you are?

The answer (putting it as simplistic as possible) is:

Life (or Source or Reality or, if you like, Self [big ’S’]) is ultimately the doer, instigator, thinker, understander and so on.

The ‘you’ that IT is doing is what is sometimes known as the ‘conventional self’ which is roughly synonymous with the body-mind-matrix - which as I’ve explained several times is not an entity - it’s closer to an activity - an activity OF Source.

So we could say that Life/Source is like the ocean and the BMM is like a wave. In a sense there is no wave there is just the ocean waving.

So the relationship is like the ocean and a wave. And back to the original point - a wave is not a fixed, immutable, separate entity - a wave is not a separate self.

Now, that IS an answer to your questions.

——————

Now I have a question for you in order that I can understand where you are coming from:

Do you believe in personal continuity after death? i.e. do any traits, characteristics, memories etc. survive death.

OR

Do you just believe that non-personal Life/existence is eternal?

Thanks.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Moondance

Hi GL

Let’s put aside what you think I implied and deal with the question.

I said: “Life is simply happening on its own - no one is doing it… IT is doing you.”

You say: I asked you what the relationship was between what you are and what is life. I asked you if life is what you are?

The answer (putting it as simplistic as possible) is:

Life (or Source or Reality or, if you like, Self [big ’S’]) is ultimately the doer, instigator, thinker, understander and so on.

The ‘you’ that IT is doing is what is sometimes known as the ‘conventional self’ which is roughly synonymous with the body-mind-matrix - which as I’ve explained several times is not an entity - it’s closer to an activity - an activity OF Source.

So we could say that Life/Source is like the ocean and the BMM is like a wave. In a sense there is no wave there is just the ocean waving.

So the relationship is like the ocean and a wave. And back to the original point - a wave is not a fixed, immutable, separate entity - a wave is not a separate self.

Now, that IS an answer to your questions.

——————

Now I have a question for you in order that I can understand where you are coming from:

Do you believe in personal continuity after death? i.e. do any traits, characteristics, memories etc. survive death.

OR

Do you just believe that non-personal Life/existence is eternal?

Thanks.

Hi M.D.

So life is what you are? Lets be clear here.

Lets take this one step at a time because I have maintained there is only what you are have I not?.

If you say 'life' is what you/we are then I can work with this or your other chosen words.

I have maintained that this conventional self that you speak of doesn't exist on it's own merit, there is just what you are thinking it is this through a level of conceptual identification. You agree with this by saying this conventional self is not an entity as such. The 'entity' is present however in the presence of what you are that becomes consciously awareness of itself. This is why for those that suggest there is no 'me' identified in life's doing is incorrect. It is true that what you are is beyond the mind-body-self-awareness but that isn't what is happening now while you read my post is it.

There is no engaging / functioning in life without a sense of self identification no matter what the thought of it is.

It's how me make sense of what we are and what tea is, it's how monkeys know what banana's are.

Now in regards to I am not the body and such likes we need to now relate this life 'or what you are' with the body and tell me how the body is not what you are.

I also need to know if there is only that or something else other than that.

This is why there is a lot of confusion relating to things not being me or or mine, for who/m or what else is there, is what I have been constantly asking.

If you concur that there is only Self /Life /Source then there cannot be anything other than that.

The neti neti approach is therefore flawed is it not for everything is what you are no matter what you think it is.

This is the crux of it all, mixing up what you are beyond self-awareness with what you are that isn't.



To answer your question, yes there can be a personal reflection after physical death ..

One can however realize what you are in the world of spirit and simply be in the Source energy.

There is no 'you' there are no thought's of you or tea .. but this is temporary just as Self realization of the earth plane is.

This is why I say with conviction that there has to be a self identification and a sense of what that is while you are of this world.

To strive for non self is fine in one respect, but there will be no non self experience had while you are aware of this world.

If there are individuals that want to engage in life in some kinda non self state while making tea then they will be disappointed I am sure of it.


x daz x

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Hi M.D.
So life is what you are? Lets be clear here.
Lets take this one step at a time because I have maintained there is only what you are have I not?.

HI GL

Before I continue, can you acknowledge that I actually answered your previous question. Then we can move on to discuss where we agree or perhaps, disagree. Thanks.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Moondance

HI GL

Before I continue, can you acknowledge that I actually answered your previous question. Then we can move on to discuss where we agree or perhaps, disagree. Thanks.

You have answered my question, but the answer is not complete because your answer leads on to further question/s in order for me to understand the relationship between what you are in relationship to the body while entertaining the concept that there is only Self / Source ..

Which led me on to counter question the following .


Now in regards to I am not the body and such likes we need to now relate this life 'or what you are' with the body and tell me how the body is not what you are.

I also need to know if there is only that or something else other than that.

This is why there is a lot of confusion relating to things not being me or or mine, for who/m or what else is there, is what I have been constantly asking.


If you had answered my question then I would not need to ask any further.

If there is only Self then it doesn't make sense to say that there is anything that is not what you are ..

Can you see why I can't understand why there is this talk about there being 'stuff' that is not me / mine etc .



x daz x