No-separation and the straw-self

[JohnHermes]

There are many planes of Being--many sub-planes of Life--many degrees of existence in the Universe. And all depend upon the advancement of beings in the scale, of which scale the lowest point is the grossest matter, the highest being separated only by the thinnest division from the SPIRIT of THE ALL. And, upward and onward along this Scale of Life, everything is moving. All are on the Path, whose end is THE ALL. All progress is a Returning Home. All is Upward and Onward, in spite of all seemingly contradictory appearances. Such is the message of the Illumined.

The Hermetic Teachings concerning the process of the Mental Creation of the Universe, are that at the beginning of the Creative Cycle, THE ALL, in its aspect of Being, projects its Will toward its aspect of "Becoming" and the process of creation begins. It is taught that the process consists of the lowering of Vibration until a very low degree of vibratory energy is reached, at which point the grossest possible form of Matter is manifested. This process is called the stage of Involution, in which THE ALL becomes "involved," or "wrapped up," in its creation. This process is believed by the Hermetists to have a Correspondence to the mental process of an artist, writer, or inventor, who becomes so wrapped up in his mental creation as to almost forget his own existence and who, for the time being, almost "lives in his creation," If instead of "wrapped" we use the word "rapt," perhaps we will give a better idea of what is meant.

This Involuntary stage of Creation is sometimes called the "Outpouring" of the Divine Energy, just as the Evolutionary state is called the "Indrawing." The extreme pole of the Creative process is considered to be the furthest removed from THE ALL, while the beginning of the Evolutionary stage is regarded as the beginning of the return swing of the pendulum of Rhythm--a "coming home" idea being held in all of the Hermetic Teachings.

- The Kybalion

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by God-Like

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 .

Right, so I have clearly answered your question. That’s an indisputable fact. The issue then becomes whether or not the answer satisfies you. Can you see the distinction? Whether an answer is to your satisfaction involves the elements of subjectivity and interpretation. This subjectivity and interpretation is based on your experience and understanding, what you believe, how you see things and so on.

[/quote]
Yes, Life/Source is what you are - IT is ALL there is.

The con-self or BMM does not exist of its own accord. It is a play, patterning or expression of Source.

We covered the identification part of the topic before. I agreed that all sorts of secondary or relative identifications are necessary for many practical and social transactions. I pointed out that “they don’t bind us in any way unless we are totally immersed in them and are unable to intuit our deepest nature.” And that they “are relative and therefore - by default - can be sublated by a more fundamental principle.”

Included in those secondary identifications is the identification with this particular BMM (or con-self) but this is not an entity it’s closer to an activity - an activity OF Source. In realisation, this is never lost sight of.

We also disagreed that there can be no functioning in life without a sense of self identification. I’m certain that there are many moments in a day where the human brain is not making those connections (and there are many species who simply don’t have the mental architecture to make those connections.) I think that it would be pointless to argue this point so best to agree to differ here.

———

Right, on to your bits in bold:

The ‘body and such likes’ are a play or patterning or expression of Source. So they are equivalent to waves in the ocean analogy. So (and this is important to note) a wave is made of the ocean but a wave is NOT the ocean. Can you see the difference there? A individuated wave is not the Totality - it’s not Source - yet it is made from Source (so to speak.)

So yes, I concur there is nothing other than Source. But Source in all its magnificence plays the game of limitation.

A body-mind-matrix is Source presenting as sentient limitation. This is why I don’t know your thoughts or know what colour socks you are wearing. I am the stuff of God - but I (as in this BBM, Moondance) am not God.

I’m not really a fan of ‘neti neti’ so we don’t need to go there.

———

Again, it should be clear that I have actually answered your questions. Again, whether or not this satisfies or is understood is dependent on factors mentioned above.

———

I may come on to my question that I put to you, later.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Moondance

Right, so I have clearly answered your question. That’s an indisputable fact. The issue then becomes whether or not the answer satisfies you. Can you see the distinction? Whether an answer is to your satisfaction involves the elements of subjectivity and interpretation. This subjectivity and interpretation is based on your experience and understanding, what you believe, how you see things and so on.

But if you say you have more questions - as long as we are not going around in circles - we can continue.

You wrote:



Yes, Life/Source is what you are - IT is ALL there is.

The con-self or BMM does not exist of its own accord. It is a play, patterning or expression of Source.

We covered the identification part of the topic before. I agreed that all sorts of secondary or relative identifications are necessary for many practical and social transactions. I pointed out that “they don’t bind us in any way unless we are totally immersed in them and are unable to intuit our deepest nature.” And that they “are relative and therefore - by default - can be sublated by a more fundamental principle.”

Included in those secondary identifications is the identification with this particular BMM (or con-self) but this is not an entity it’s closer to an activity - an activity OF Source. In realisation, this is never lost sight of.

We also disagreed that there can be no functioning in life without a sense of self identification. I’m certain that there are many moments in a day where the human brain is not making those connections (and there are many species who simply don’t have the mental architecture to make those connections.) I think that it would be pointless to argue this point so best to agree to differ here.

———

Right, on to your bits in bold:

The ‘body and such likes’ are a play or patterning or expression of Source. So they are equivalent to waves in the ocean analogy. So (and this is important to note) a wave is made of the ocean but a wave is NOT the ocean. Can you see the difference there? A individuated wave is not the Totality - it’s not Source - yet it is made from Source (so to speak.)

So yes, I concur there is nothing other than Source. But Source in all its magnificence plays the game of limitation.

A body-mind-matrix is Source presenting as sentient limitation. This is why I don’t know your thoughts or know what colour socks you are wearing. I am the stuff of God - but I (as in this BBM, Moondance) am not God.

I’m not really a fan of ‘neti neti’ so we don’t need to go there.

———

Again, it should be clear that I have actually answered your questions. Again, whether or not this satisfies or is understood is dependent on factors mentioned above.

———

I may come on to my question that I put to you, later.

You have clearly answered the question which didn't however cover the relationship between what you are and the body. Without this explained your answer didn't make complete sense. You can say it's an indisputable fact if you like in that you answered me but it would be similar to Rains instance where there could be the answer of consciousness as being what you are without any further information than that. It would make no sense to me at all.

Why it also didn't make sense to me was because as said you made distinctions between 'you' and 'life' despite there being only what you are present.

This was a very simple point I made continuously. The conventional self might as well be a smoke screen because it holds no weight by itself.

One might as well put a mask on one's face and then say that's not what I AM because of the mask lol.

This could be rectified in an instant by saying that the mask doesn't alter the fact at all.




You now go on to say that the conventional self is an expression of Source which I can work with.

I kept saying what else is there other than what we are?

It kinda fell on deaf ears and it still does in regards to some of my other conversations had with others.

If you had said, GL from the start that there is only what you are, I would have agreed with you.

There seemed to be more distinctions between 'what you are' and other self aspects.

The whole point I was making was to unite all these self aspects including the mind-body-matrix and place them in one Self box.



The conversations as you know that I am having not with you so much, where there is still this divide between Self and me and my hand lol.

Jones boy is now speaking of the ego attachment as not being what you are (roughly translated).

It seems there are plenty of self references that peeps want to let go of or disassociate with or from because it's supposedly 'not what they are' on some level.


In regards to your wave and ocean analogy I went into detail about the ocean and the drop. I can see the differences between the ocean and the drop but fundamentally there is no difference.

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by God-Like

You have clearly answered the question which didn't however cover the relationship between what you are and the body. Without this explained your answer didn't make complete sense. You can say it's an indisputable fact if you like in that you answered me but it would be similar to Rains instance where there could be the answer of consciousness as being what you are without any further information than that. It would make no sense to me at all.

Hi GL

I quite plainly did cover the relationship between what you are and the body. I even used the word ‘relationship’. Again this may be a case of you not reading carefully or appreciating or perhaps understanding the answer given (as you say, some things don’t make sense to you.)

Originally Posted by Moondance

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.

And:

Originally Posted by Moondance

The ‘body and such likes’ are a play or patterning or expression of Source. So they are equivalent to waves in the ocean analogy. So (and this is important to note) a wave is made of the ocean but a wave is NOT the ocean. Can you see the difference there? A individuated wave is not the Totality - it’s not Source - yet it is made from Source (so to speak.)

So yes, I concur there is nothing other than Source. But Source in all its magnificence plays the game of limitation.

A body-mind-matrix is Source presenting as sentient limitation. This is why I don’t know your thoughts or know what colour socks you are wearing. I am the stuff of God - but I (as in this BBM, Moondance) am not God.

What this means is you are not other than Source - but in this expression (BMM) it is Source presenting as limitation. This body-mind-matrix known here as God-Like, despite the name, cannot leap across the Bristol channel or have knowledge about a distant galaxy. This is due to sentient limitation. To use another analogy, your substance or essential nature is gold (Source) yet your expression or conventional nature is a ring or charm (BMM.)

In a no-separation sensibility (to put it in extremely simplistic terms) there is the felt-sense that THIS that is going on is the movement of the whole (so to speak.) You (the apparent BMM) are not moving about in Life - Life or THIS (as it is) is the movement. You scratch your nose and just that is a movement of Source. But sentient/biological limitation (obviously) remains the case - because Source presents as that too.

———

Please can you avoid making references to others on the forum - apart from anything else, I have not read all of their input as yet.

———

The rest of this is about where we disagree. So it’s not actually anything to do with answering questions it’s about disagreement - which is fine - there’s no shame in agreeing to disagree. And as you point out, we actually do have some areas of agreement.

Now if you have any further questions perhaps you could make them concise and to the point and number them - then I will precisely address each number. Let’s try that.

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by 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.

so as usual you are telling me I have to go somewhere I'm not at already to get something important that I should have. Oh well....

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

so as usual you are telling me I have to go somewhere I'm not at already to get something important that I should have. Oh well....

Really, FallingLeaves? Is that how you read it?

Look at it this way: You don’t have to go anywhere, do anything, strive, struggle or lift a finger in order to BE who/what you are. In order to REALISE the truth of this, realisation is required - the obviousness of that makes the saying of it a tautology.

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by 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.

Nice piece of writing, enjoyable to read and I like what it points to. Thanks for sharing.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

Nice piece of writing, enjoyable to read and I like what it points to. Thanks for sharing.

I'll second that.

Plus appreciating what both Moondance and Iamthat are sharing on this board.

*

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by sentient

I'll second that.

Plus appreciating what both Moondance and Iamthat are sharing on this board.

*

Sentient and Joe Mc, thanks for the comments - glad that something resonated.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by Moondance

Sentient and Joe Mc, thanks for the comments - glad that something resonated.

I don’t usually comment on yours and Iamthat’s posts - there is no need to, because to me they most often are straightforward – 'what is'.

So I just ‘listen’.

*