Enlightenment

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Rikki

Would you?

All you do is ask questions Andrew, it seems like a distraction technique. You skirt round the actual issue.

Now it's my turn.

Why do you believe in the things you do? What gives them a reality?

You claim a self, how do you know this to be 100% true?

I dont claim to know anything to be 100 per cent true, and Im not sure that I actually 'claim a self' as such.

Answering the question...''why do you believe in the things I do'' is a massive question worthy of another 400 pages. I will settle for this...''I believe the things I do because the universe has brought that to be''.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Rikki

Well i'm using language to communicate, right?

If you called 'Rikki' in a bar, i'd turn around, because the mind understands this as a label for me. But it doesn't mean that's who I actually am. Just because you say the words doesn't automatically give me a real identity.

Do you see this?

You said it here dude. In the end, beyond the separate self (or the 'self' as you define it) there is still individuality.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Imaginary

But a self is not required.

Infact, there is no such a thing as a self for it to be required.

All you have are just thoughts of what "you" are, just that, not an actual "you".

I havent said a self IS required. I still dont know what the word means to you. What I have said is that individuality and multiplicity is required in order for relating to happen.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Rikki

Just tell me why, all you do is ask questions?

Really?

Coz I like you.

Originally Posted by andrew g

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.

Yes, this need to liberate isn't about facilitating the emergence of wholism and well-being within a person's chosen ontology, it is outright ontological warfare.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Rikki

What makes you individual Andrew?

Yeah, ok, you've had a unique upbringing. ie different things you've done, people you've met in relation to my upbringing.

But what makes YOU individual?

What makes us individuals is that what is being experienced through the bodymind called ''Rikki'' is different to what is being experienced through the bodymind called ''Andrew''.

I suggested once that you sit very still and become aware of the presence of presence. That presence is you. I not that very same presence, because if I was I would be aware of and feel all presences! I am not 'omnipresent!'. In order that experiencing can happen there has to be different presences.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Rikki

The content is different from human to human, but is the experience? The space where the thoughts and emotions manifest?

If we were just the space we would be omnipresent. We would all be experiencing the same thing. Actually there would be nothing to experience. We are the presence that is prior to the form. The individuality, the atman, the soul, the self....many words for the same thing which point to a presence prior to conditioning and worldly experiences.

Ramana Maharshi talks of an I-I. An I prior to the illusionary self, the self of the thoughts.

This is why I said I thought you were awakened and not enlightened. You have seen what you are not but are not yet grounded in what you are. I would say that that is still a work in progress for me too :)

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Rikki

I'm out guys.

Speak soon.

Can you be 'out' twice hehe?

[andrew g]

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.

The reason I put ''your'' in quotes is because I see the fallacy of 'ownership'. The logic isnt circular, the actuality of meaningful communication reflects the actuality of difference and individuality on some level. If there was no difference or individuality, the mind would have no way of creating meaning. So self-awareness is not without any foundation at all. Its not just totally 'made up'. The confusion is not that there is some kind of individuality (or self), but that we are somehow an I AND a self.

Greetings..

Cripe, i go away for a few hours and the place gets vandalized by those RT thugs.. geeeze, who's in charge of security..

At issue, is the claim that there is no tangible self.. i agree. Yet, all of the attributes attributed to the intangible self, have a direct and quantifiable effect on reality.. self, is real, it causes change in reality..

Here's the deal, what is it that the RT evangelists 'want'? they want to hear selfs confess and agree with them, right? typical run-of-the-mill preachers.. so, if it restores sanity to the forum, agree.. they go home with their points for Ciaran's approval, and we can get back to understanding the nature of self.. seems like a no-brainer to me, pardon the pun.. but, remember, we have to say exactly what Ciaran wants them to hear, or they'll stick around and make this place a cesspool just like RT.. who's in?

Be well..