Enlightenment

I'm out guys.

Speak soon.

Originally Posted by Topology

Because, Rikki, you keep addressing -me- directly. If I don't respond, then you'll keep addressing me until you get a response. ---YOU--- keep reinforcing the existence of this "illusion" you are trying to get ---me--- to see through. If you truly wanted me to approach a state of less self, or no self, then you would have to stop interacting with me completely.

That's the nature of language.

Originally Posted by andrew g

The thought of a self mirrors the reality that what is being perceived through ''your'' eyes is different to what is being perceived through ''my'' eyes.

Your sentences is flawed. It implies a self by saying "your" eyes.

That's just circular reasoning.

I expect better than this.

Originally Posted by Topology

Because, Rikki, you keep addressing -me- directly. If I don't respond, then you'll keep addressing me until you get a response. ---YOU--- keep reinforcing the existence of this "illusion" you are trying to get ---me--- to see through. If you truly wanted me to approach a state of less self, or no self, then you would have to stop interacting with me completely.

That's the nature of language.

Originally Posted by andrew g

The thought of a self mirrors the reality that what is being perceived through ''your'' eyes is different to what is being perceived through ''my'' eyes.

Your sentences is flawed. It implies a self by saying "your" eyes.

That's just circular reasoning.

I expect better than this.

Originally Posted by andrew g

You are happy with the idea of individuality! Thats cool, so are we. We are happy to talk about multiplicity in many ways. Sometimes we talk about it in terms of 'selves', but when we do that we are distinguishing between that and the stuff that happens in the mind. We are not opposed to the WORD 'self'.

Really. You don't believe there is a self in any way?

Originally Posted by andrew g

When Rikki talks about the 'self' what he is talking about is an 'I-thought' or what I might call sometimes a 'separate self'.

What do you mean by 'self' here?

No no it's not.

A thought is a thought not a self.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Rikki

So in your opinion, has every teacher of enlightenment throughout history been a fraud?

Jesus?

Buddha?

Nothing is fraud.

Much is done as awareness unaware. It's really none of our business. All is awareness.......aware and/or not aware.
Your message lacks awareness...........thats not a judgement. It is what is seen when aware.
God has every right to appear aware or awakening, or asleep. Who is there to argue that..................

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Rikki

Well yes, they exist.



What is the bodymind?



It has to be, or we'd all be robots thinking the EXACT same things.

Everyone has had a different upbringing, and different memories. This has created different perceived identities. Illusionary identities.

Why do you believe what you do Andrew? What gives whatever you believe it's truth, it's reality?

Okay, so I think we are actually agreed then.....a bodymind is just another way of talking about a body and a mind. Its just 'body' and 'mind' put together as one word.

What you call a 'self' I call an 'I-thought'. So I agree that this 'self' exists only as a thought. Yet there are also different experiences happening through each bodymind. What I am suggesting to you, is that the word 'self' is just a convenient way of talking about the actuality of different experiences that happen through each bodymind. What Stephen has called 'Individuality'.

My computer connection has been really poor today so Im going as fast as I can. I doubt I will be going too far from the computer, I was never one for missing out on a good party hehe.

Originally Posted by Stephen

That's the nature of language.



Your sentences is flawed. It implies a self by saying "your" eyes.

That's just circular reasoning.

I expect better than this.



That's the nature of language.



Your sentences is flawed. It implies a self by saying "your" eyes.

That's just circular reasoning.

I expect better than this.



Really. You don't believe there is a self in any way?



No no it's not.

A thought is a thought not a self.

Stephen, The fact that you had copied and pasted the same response twice just reminded me of this video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpJFa-WmBnI

Originally Posted by Rikki

Wow, you admit it's a position. Cool.

And no, 'no-self' is not a position. It's reality. In real life. Right now.

Any positive assertion of a fact, a statement about reality, is a position. Remember, I'm a formal logician. You can't get away with things with me that you can get away with on people that haven't studied logic and argument to any depth. You are most definitely asserting a position.

Originally Posted by Rikki

Don't quite get this. Coming from a personal self you experience as a falsity?

Thought it was really you? Now it's acknowledged as a falsity?

personal self, the story of what happened to me in the past is false. The impersonal self, this instance of consciousness, is not false.

Originally Posted by Rikki

But yeah, I don't really like 'im enlightened' anyway. I prefer i'm not un-enlightened'.

Then your position on this has changed because what you are expressing here is completely inconsistent with what you expressed in the OP and the name you chose for yourself originally.

Originally Posted by Stephen

yes. he said mental phenomena is a self. which is still a self. He's just sticking a label of self onto mental phenomena.

And you're labeling it as mental phenomena.

Yes, when the labels are all taken away, there is no self. But then there is no world, no tree, no dog, no other, no mind, not even mental phenomena. Just phenomena. So if we're going to indulge in categories, I see no good argument why to view this instance of phenomena as individuated and thus instantiating a self. After all, I can't hear the sound of your voice in your head when you think to yourself. So if it happens for you, I accept your testimony and have to presume there is an instance of consciousness that is not my own that you are experiencing and speaking from.

Unless you see a way out of individual instances of consciousness?

if there is no self, then there is no "other" to get enlightened either.

Originally Posted by Rikki

*blows head off*

LOL

Welcome to the club.

There's more than one way to be headless.

(fyi- one does stop the heart)


Just having fun at your expense Andrew.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Rikki

Answer it however you take it for now..

I understand what the word 'self' means to you. What you call 'self' I might call 'I-thought' or 'separate self'.

So to me, the word 'self' is just a convenient way of talking about the actuality of difference at the level of experiencing and perceiving i.e. what is being experienced through ''your'' bodymind is different to what is being experienced through ''my'' bodymind.

It seems to me that we are agreed on what is actual but because I use different language to you, you interpret that to mean that I need liberating.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Stephen

No one can say for sure. But, I'd suspect there are. In fact the structure of reality kind of requires it

I agree. Thats what many of us have been saying for 400 pages.