Integrate or Renounce .

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by davidsun

The idea of loving your 'self' is a 'trap', IMO, because any (particular) 'i'dentity is not LIFE Itself, but a form (i.e. fragment of) of IT.

(ooops) missed this one (sorry)

It could be equally said that what you propose is a trap because you are coming from the same place so to speak.

self is related to the experience of form / identity but it is not separate from what you refer to as life itself.

Whether or not anything self related is a trap or not, an illusion or not carries with it a sense of feeling that what you are is experiencing love or fear etc ..

It would be ever so confusing to distance the feeling of love from what you relate to yourself being ..

You wouldn't therefore associate your love for anything .. you wouldn't make the association that you love your family .

Going about your business disassociating your identity with how you feel is not what union is all about.

Self realization brings to the table of the mindful self 'union' .

There is no disassociation . Disassociation is of the mindful self, just like I was referring loving yourself is a trap through disassociation .


x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Alita

Just had a thought. If i got some play dough and make a human figure and move it with my hands, does it mean it is me and does it mean that when i dont touch it anymore and its lying there still, a part of me died? and then i thought what if its the same way with our body? what if my soul made my body with its perception or whatever and then its been moving me every single day until it doesnt? Then is my body me? or is it just the play dough that i was playing with? it certainly did what i wanted it to but when i stopped moving it I took back my power for its ability to move and i was still me with nothing less.
I seriously just thought about that now lol

How I see it is that you can't separate the mind-body from what you are.

I think there are various degrees of attachment where a peep can perhaps only identify with the body as there is no comparison had.

Some on the other hand have experiences / realizations beyond the body so therefore renounce themselves from it .

Integration in my understanding is that you are both, the body and not the body at the same time .

While you are experiencing it renouncing it is disassociation like said in my above post.

Self realization doesn't point to that and I think there is the requirement of that in order to understand that everything including the body is what you are .


x daz x

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Alita

Just had a thought. If i got some play dough and make a human figure and move it with my hands, does it mean it is me and does it mean that when i dont touch it anymore and its lying there still, a part of me died? and then i thought what if its the same way with our body? what if my soul made my body with its perception or whatever and then its been moving me every single day until it doesnt? Then is my body me? or is it just the play dough that i was playing with? it certainly did what i wanted it to but when i stopped moving it I took back my power for its ability to move and i was still me with nothing less.
I seriously just thought about that now lol

Makes sense to 'me'.

There's the 'mortal' 'body' made up of 'atoms', 'molecules', 'cells', etc. each and all co-operating on the basis of their (kinds of) 'minds' and 'spirits' - said 'body' is 'mortal' because such co-operative 'structure' eventually disintegrates.

And there's the 'immortal' 'you' (soul?) - which one might say has a life that is 'independent' of the above-referenced 'body'-vehicle - which is 'immortal', or at least potentially 'immortal', because it has the capacity develop, by way of reincarnation, to the point where consciously and emotionally identifies and so integrates with the MIND-and-SPIRIT of the 'immortal' CREATOR of BEING ITSELF.

Or something like that!

"If at first 'you' don't succeed, you will experience bodies that die and die again (till you do)" comes to mind in this regard.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by God-Like

How I see it is that you can't separate the mind-body from what you are.

I think there are various degrees of attachment where a peep can perhaps only identify with the body as there is no comparison had.

Some on the other hand have experiences / realizations beyond the body so therefore renounce themselves from it .

Integration in my understanding is that you are both, the body and not the body at the same time .

While you are experiencing it renouncing it is disassociation like said in my above post.

Self realization doesn't point to that and I think there is the requirement of that in order to understand that everything including the body is what you are .


x daz x

Hey there Dazzer :)

Agreed. Perhaps as you say the renouncing is sought as a way to expand consciousness for some...particularly, the temptation to renounce the body would be strong if what I refer to as the "dark wolves" are relatively powerful and one's ability to counter, discipline, or transcend them are relatively weak.

Still, I personally think it is (from my own experiences) extremely destructive to expansion of consciousness from an awakened heart centre, to proceed with any sort of disassociation. What I'm calling awakened heart centre is the same as what you are calling union. I could have said that as well Maybe I'll change it up a bit :)

That speaks to the need for some (or for many) to explore other ways of approaching union in authentic love for oneself without having to deny or disassociate, particularly from feelings, groundedness, and care and nurturing for the truth of the physical being -- which as you say is also an integral aspect of who we are.

Peace & blessings
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Makes sense to 'me'.

There's the 'mortal' 'body' made up of 'atoms', 'molecules', 'cells', etc. each and all co-operating on the basis of their (kinds of) 'minds' and 'spirits' - said 'body' is 'mortal' because such co-operative 'structure' eventually disintegrates.

And there's the 'immortal' 'you' (soul?) - which one might say has a life that is 'independent' of the above-referenced 'body'-vehicle - which is 'immortal', or at least potentially 'immortal', because it has the capacity develop, by way of reincarnation, to the point where consciously and emotionally identifies and so integrates with the MIND-and-SPIRIT of the 'immortal' CREATOR of BEING ITSELF.

Or something like that!

"If at first 'you' don't succeed, you will experience bodies that die and die again (till you do)" comes to mind in this regard.

Davidsun, hello!
Yes...completely agree. That's pretty much it...that and facing all the various situations and challenges you haven't yet sorted, along the way

Peace & blessings
7L

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Hey there Dazzer :)

Agreed. Perhaps as you say the renouncing is sought as a way to expand consciousness for some...particularly, the temptation to renounce the body would be strong if what I refer to as the "dark wolves" are relatively powerful and one's ability to counter, discipline, or transcend them are relatively weak.

Still, I personally think it is (from my own experiences) extremely destructive to expansion of consciousness from an awakened heart centre, to proceed with any sort of disassociation. What I'm calling awakened heart centre is the same as what you are calling union. I could have said that as well Maybe I'll change it up a bit :)

That speaks to the need for some (or for many) to explore other ways of approaching union in authentic love for oneself without having to deny or disassociate, particularly from feelings, groundedness, and care and nurturing for the truth of the physical being -- which as you say is also an integral aspect of who we are.

Peace & blessings
7L

I agree, I don't think it matters how one gets from A-Z whether they renounce until there is only what they are (left) so to speak, it's similar to an old analogy of mine where one can't see wood for the trees and has to clear the path in order to find some sure footings.

One then finds there feet in that more of the path is revealed and one has a focus to clear the entire path so one can see everything clearly. Such a direction / course of action is already in motion.

Only when one finally see's clearly can one see that everything that was cleared or renounced in order to see clearly was what you are also .. it's just at the time one couldn't see that .

There is context at play here obviously and peeps can seemingly switch between the totality of what you are and the experience of the mind-body and then compare the differences.

In the totality realization the mind-body-self is no longer, so what does that say about the mind-body from that realization perspective .

To be honest within the realization itself there is no self nor comparisons to make, so all this jazz about the mind-body illusion and the empty appearances of the mind derives from mind and not of the realization itself.

In my eyes all that hits home pertaining to the realization itself is that there is only what you are .

What one makes of their life experience thereafter post-realization I believe is just trying to make sense of the stark comparison .


x dazzer x

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by God-Like

I agree, I don't think it matters how one gets from A-Z whether they renounce until there is only what they are (left) so to speak, it's similar to an old analogy of mine where one can't see wood for the trees and has to clear the path in order to find some sure footings.

Playing with your analogy:

It occurs to me that wise, or wising-'up' (because of free ranging intelligence), monkeys just swing from tree to tree, exploring, savoring and enjoying eating whatever they find (by way of experience) to be the 'best' fruit in the forest, of course meaningfully learning from and basking/reveling/fulfilling their 'love' nature in relational association with other wise (i.e. not crazy-obsessively fixated on the fruit of this 'tree' or the particularities of the journey afforded by that 'path') monkeys in the process.

Of course, learning to by-pass 'fruit' (and 'fruit-cakes'! ) that are nasty, poisonous, parasitical, substantially vacuous etc. as well as to 'keep an eye on' those that are simply not edibly 'ripe' yet is part of the wising-'up' process.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Playing with your analogy:

It occurs to me that wise, or wising-'up' (because of free ranging intelligence), monkeys just swing from tree to tree, exploring, savoring and enjoying eating whatever they find (by way of experience) to be the 'best' fruit in the forest, of course meaningfully learning from and basking/reveling/fulfilling their 'love' nature in relational association with other wise (i.e. not crazy-obsessively fixated on the fruit of this 'tree' or the particularities of the journey afforded by that 'path') monkeys in the process.

Of course, learning to by-pass 'fruit' (and 'fruit-cakes'! ) that are nasty, poisonous, parasitical, substantially vacuous etc. as well as to 'keep an eye on' those that are simply not edibly 'ripe' yet is part of the wising-'up' process.

I don't really follow you entirely

Perhaps your just speaking of experiencing life without too much thought about the inner workings compared with trying to get to the depths of self in reflection of life's meaning .

Either way one is in a way moving from A-Z simply because one is experiencing .

I am not sure how you would tie in your thought that loving self is a trap with the monkey identifying with itself in it's own way ..

Is swinging through the jungle any less of a trap in your eyes?

Is the monkey any less self identified just because it's not questioning the inner workings?



x daz x

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by God-Like

I agree, I don't think it matters how one gets from A-Z whether they renounce until there is only what they are (left) so to speak, it's similar to an old analogy of mine where one can't see wood for the trees and has to clear the path in order to find some sure footings.

One then finds there feet in that more of the path is revealed and one has a focus to clear the entire path so one can see everything clearly. Such a direction / course of action is already in motion.

Only when one finally see's clearly can one see that everything that was cleared or renounced in order to see clearly was what you are also .. it's just at the time one couldn't see that .

Hey there Dazzer,
Agreed...now this next may seem off topic, but really it's right at the heart of it. It has to do with what I said and what you said, i.e., that for many who feel that their dark wolves are powerful and they lack the strength and the inner fortitude to cope with them, going to some extreme like renunciation may look a) like a pretty good or reasonable option or b) like the only way in hell they'll ever get a handle on self-control in various areas.

The problem with renunciation of the body and of the physical is that it poses this false dualism. As you've been saying, you can never "get away" from the body...and as I've said in the past, the body speaks truly. The body will never lie to you in situations of harm and abuse. Nor will the heart centre. The body and the heart are directly connected. TBH only the unawakened mind may lie or mislead or deny or justify. So IMO it is absolutely wrong and misdirected to somehow try to break this fundamental body-heart integration of our being. We need to keep this integration and then add to it the awakened mind, in service to heart.

However just like unawakened mind run amok and trying to "rule" by (ego-based) decree is problematic, so is giving the body free reign to indulge and exploit others and the world at large, based on an incessant, never-ending, amoral pursuit of momentary pleasure. As many mystics have said, the urges of the body tend toward infinity and can never be truly and finally satisfied by any amount of additional "stuff" in the material realm (whether money, power, sex, food, drugs, or what have ye).

The problem for so many is that when the urges of the body are allowed free reign to run rampant, a cycle of either physical or psychological addiction kicks in -- and then as we know, many will then look to the mind to justify and prop up this mad regime. Why it's (all) good to use others, to lie or to harm them, etc., in pursuit of your pleasure and so forth.

The thing is that even when folks recognise that this is a spiritually deadening way to live, using others in pursuit of your momentary pleasures and power trips, etc., many will keep on justifying to the high heavens because they only perceive two options...total indulgence of my wants OR total renunciation, where I am not at the mercy of urges and ego. This is why so many societies and individuals, both, seem to be raging or kicking and screaming at any mention or consideration of the next leg on their journey...which of course will involve growth and taking ownership. Where it becomes much more difficult and much less palatable to continue the same way, using the same sort of rationales.

There is another way, of course. The way of authentic love and integration. The middle way is not in the middle of these other two extremes, at all, is it? It is something else altogether. Where authentic love is compatible with being fully present in the body, centred in the heart. With awakened mind in service to heart.

There is context at play here obviously and peeps can seemingly switch between the totality of what you are and the experience of the mind-body and then compare the differences.

In the totality realization the mind-body-self is no longer, so what does that say about the mind-body from that realization perspective .

To be honest within the realization itself there is no self nor comparisons to make, so all this jazz about the mind-body illusion and the empty appearances of the mind derives from mind and not of the realization itself.

In my eyes all that hits home pertaining to the realization itself is that there is only what you are .

What one makes of their life experience thereafter post-realization I believe is just trying to make sense of the stark comparison .


x dazzer x

Yes. Agreed. There is only what you are. Every aspect of us is spirit, in that all matter emanates from and is sustained by spirit. Our bodies are temples and are equally sacred, for all they are temporal unlike the eternity of consciousness

So what strikes (or has struck) you the most in your post-realisation experience? (BTW the auto spell checker is driving me mad.)

I think for me one big or general aspect is the wonder of being the love we are at centre. Running talks about this a lot using his own terms.

But there is so much texture and detail to that as well. So much deeper knowledge of what is and of our connection to all that is. For me, this texture and detail -- which all of us will have relating to our individual consciousness and lives -- is truly fascinating because it too reveals all that is, in that individual, fractal sense that we each can recognise and resonate with...yes, that's right...I've experienced that, I know that, I know them, etc.

Right now...I'm coming to terms with a truly soul-deadening past-life memory. It's just around a single event or day but it gives the flavour of that lifetime. I have to share it, for healing. It will take a good bit of strength but this is how (in one example) that we can partake and share and benefit from all this texture and flavor and detail.

By integrating it, and not by renouncing it.
Renunciation IMO should be only for the deepest soul lessons regarding behaviours that harm and are misaligned in authentic love. Meaning, not in the highest good of one and all, equally.

Broad strokes, the only things I've renounced over my other lifetimes are:
1) violence as any sort of solution to anything
2) any amoral, utilitarian personal philosophy or any personal "ideology" that justifies amoral, utilitarian pursuit of pleasure
3) any indulgence of the dark wolves of violence/sadism or amoral exploitation of others

I wouldn't say I have renounced any non-democratic form of government because I have always believed in it,
but of course I certainly do renounce them and any form of totalitarianism...it goes against everything I stand for.

What about you? If you don't mind sharing and otherwise, no problem

Peace & blessings
7L

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by God-Like

I don't really follow you entirely

You would have to be 'me' to do so!

Originally Posted by God-Like

Perhaps your just speaking of experiencing life without too much thought about the inner workings compared with trying to get to the depths of self in reflection of life's meaning.

No, I am speaking of thoughtfully considering, contemplating and savoring (eating and digesting?) every 'fruit' one experienced while monkeying (monkeys are very intelligent, you know!) on the Trees in the Forest of Life. There is much awareness (and consequent love and enjoyment) of "self" and "life's meaning' to be garnered and shared thereby.

Originally Posted by God-Like

Either way one is in a way moving from A-Z simply because one is experiencing.

There moving (linearly) from "A" to "Z" through the Forest along some path or other, and then there's ascending to higher and higher levels, where the sun shines 'most' and the 'best' fruit are, in the canopy - all by way of 'experiencing' (and learning from, i.e. intelligently 'incorporating') said 'experiences'. I 'ascension' one 'moves' ;) from "A-and-Z-ness" to "ALLness/ONEness" (wherever ONE's one is at any moment) ".

Originally Posted by God-Like

I am not sure how you would tie in your thought that loving self is a trap with the monkey identifying with itself in it's own way.

The 'self' and 'loving' said 'self' is NOT a trap, any more than a (any) 'place' is. I suppose, one could say that a soul is (figuratively) 'trapped', thought it isn't (literally), if and as it was so short-sighted as to choose to stay in the same 'place' (or only explore one, i.e. the same, 'path' )

Originally Posted by God-Like

Is swinging through the jungle any less of a trap in your eyes?

There are no 'traps' really (though there are those who cast 'nets' and those who swim/fly into them - these can always be 'exited' by intelligently going back the way one came and circling around them, however). From the book I wrote:

There is an excellent Hindu parable about a great seer who, out of the goodness of his heart, informed birds of all species about a terrible bird-catcher and warned them to beware because, sooner or later, the bird-catcher was bound to try and catch them. Not really up to the task of keeping close track of and publicly declaring the many clever ways in which the bird-catcher disguised himself, fooling themselves and others that they were adequately doing their duty, the parrots in the group diligently ‘served’ to pass on the warning, “Watch out for the bird-catcher,” from generation to generation. The wily bird-catcher found this quite to his liking since all he had to do was set up his nets and yell “I see the bird-catcher coming!” while pointing away from them. Birds galore would then fly right into his trap. Needless to say, instead of preying upon the parrots themselves, the bird-catcher would place those he caught in prominence positions to make sure that other birds would hear their ‘message’. (Note: even this parable, but of course minus the gist of the last sentence, has been used to ‘catch’ flocks gullible enough to think that a person telling such a wise story must necessarily be doing so to ‘save’ them.)

Originally Posted by God-Like

Is the monkey any less self identified just because it's not questioning the inner workings?

As Einstein said (I am paraphrasing from memory here), "A problem cannot be solved (in this case, a question cannot be answered) on the same level on which it was created." In other words, I think the question you pose is the result of 'seeing' in an 'illusion'.