What is the inner-self?

[_Z_]

no more cycles...no more learning...might as well sit around on clouds all day listening to harps....

ha yeah - Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens!



What though if eternity is the next reality i.e. after this universe comes to an end, then we may not be dealing with something so static, - an infinite continuum. I do hope we are allowed to pop in and out of nirvana for a little peace and quiet. but what would we want to do for an eternity? in the end I always end up with nirvana as the obvious destination!

 

[Quahom1]

ha yeah - Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens!



What though if eternity is the next reality i.e. after this universe comes to an end, then we may not be dealing with something so static, - an infinite continuum. I do hope we are allowed to pop in and out of nirvana for a little peace and quiet. but what would we want to do for an eternity? in the end I always end up with nirvana as the obvious destination!

Oh? And you have first hand knowledge on this?

I wouldn't want to be bored out of my mind either Z...

v/r

Q

 

[Bandit]

Inner self is a spoiled child that needs its ass kicked, and told to grow up. Fortunately as we do grow up we are designed in such a way that we can't kick our own butt too hard nor pat our own backs too hard (try it...see?)

Unlike the psychiatrists and psychologists insistence, I don't want to be a child. I want to be a man, with all that entails. I want the accolades and the responsibility, and accountablility. I want to become mature and wise.

I don't mind being called "seasoned", because it notes my stature in life and longevity, as well as experience, and hopefully courage, serenity and wisdom.

Is that what you were looking for?

v/r

Q

oh! man did that ever hit home here with me

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


interesting discussion thus far.

is there perception without a perceiver?

what is the difference between perception and the perceiver?

metta,

~v

 

[Quahom1]

Namaste all,


interesting discussion thus far.

is there perception without a perceiver?

what is the difference between perception and the perceiver?

metta,

~v

Literally nothing, and everything. Without a perceiver there is no perception. With a perciever, perception initially is everything (even if it is not the truth).

v/r

Q

 

[Vajradhara]

Literally nothing, and everything. Without a perceiver there is no perception. With a perciever, perception initially is everything (even if it is not the truth).

v/r

Q

so... would you say that perception and perceiver arise in mutal dependence upon each other?

metta,

~v

 

[Quahom1]

so... would you say that perception and perceiver arise in mutal dependence upon each other?

metta,

~v

I would say that perception is a subjective byproduct of the perceiver. Often we find after initial "judgement", we are not correct, or not completely acccurate. This is where our ability to logically step back and analyise all sides (should we take that step), keeps us from making an error, or helps us to correct one. However it only works if we are able to suffeciently suspend or repress our presonal bias...

In short, one must be willing to look through the eyes of another in order to see the whole picture.

v/r

Q

 

[earl]

"We dance around a ring and suppose.
But the secret sits in the middle and knows." Robert Frost
Have a good one, Earl

 

[Quahom1]

"We dance around a ring and suppose.
But the secret sits in the middle and knows." Robert Frost
Have a good one, Earl

As in a hurricane or an amusement ride (roundup/centrificon), the middle is the calm, while the outer ring is the chaos of life (and the life of others). By remaining in the middle, we are centered and calm. Stepping out, the centrifigal forces of life drag us farther and farther off center, until the forces of life are so great that we are pinned against the ring (or thown out of life completely).

That is being out of control of one's life.

The moral of the story is we can control nothing but our selves. Once we think we can control others or life, we lose control of self, and it takes a great deal of energy to gain self control again (to get back to the center). That is what ages us prematurely.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

 

[Vajradhara]

I would say that perception is a subjective byproduct of the perceiver. Often we find after initial "judgement", we are not correct, or not completely acccurate. This is where our ability to logically step back and analyise all sides (should we take that step), keeps us from making an error, or helps us to correct one. However it only works if we are able to suffeciently suspend or repress our presonal bias...

In short, one must be willing to look through the eyes of another in order to see the whole picture.

v/r

Q

so... would you say that the perceiver exists seperately from the perception?

metta,

~v

 

[Quahom1]

so... would you say that the perceiver exists seperately from the perception?

metta,

~v

No because, without the perceiver, there is definitely no perception. Without a person, there is no personal view.

v/r

Q

 

[_Z_]

Hi vaj and quohom,



There is a great difference between perception and 'gnosis' through oneness. The perception is looking on to a thing, a secondary view if you will, whereas becoming one or joining the mind with a given thing is an innermost yoga that bypasses the idea of the thing and joins directly with the inner state of a thing.



Or something like that - just my view of it

Z

 

[Vajradhara]

Hi vaj and quohom,



There is a great difference between perception and 'gnosis' through oneness. The perception is looking on to a thing, a secondary view if you will, whereas becoming one or joining the mind with a given thing is an innermost yoga that bypasses the idea of the thing and joins directly with the inner state of a thing.



Or something like that - just my view of it

Z

Namaste Z,

by what agent is the mind joined to an object?

metta,

~v

 

[_Z_]

Nanaste vaj



By what agent is the mind joined to an object?



No agent whatsoever! The self is both individualised and universal – so far as I see it. Thus it is linked to all things including infinity, which is also linked to all things and across time. The self is the ‘it’ factor, that sees hears and feels etc. it is also the ‘it’ that has mind thence thinks utilising the brain as a tool. Yoga is the act of union between things [as I see it], it is the ‘joining’ or oneness between one ‘it’ and another ‘it’ – is there not oneness as well as multiplicity? Or do you have a dualistic view.



I don’t quite understand why you question what for me is the very essence of Hindu and Buddhist philosophy? - well I don’t know if it is, but certainly central to druidic philosophy - why would the self need an ‘agent’ to move between things – the essential nature of spirit is freedom [in druidic philosophy] – they are intrinsically linked. The khu’s [primary or primordial spirits] arise out of the void; the two are the same as are all things [same applies to quantum mechanics], there is no separateness between things only in their apparency!


Z

 

[Vajradhara]

Nanaste vaj



By what agent is the mind joined to an object?



No agent whatsoever! The self is both individualised and universal – so far as I see it. Thus it is linked to all things including infinity, which is also linked to all things and across time. The self is the ‘it’ factor, that sees hears and feels etc. it is also the ‘it’ that has mind thence thinks utilising the brain as a tool. Yoga is the act of union between things [as I see it], it is the ‘joining’ or oneness between one ‘it’ and another ‘it’ – is there not oneness as well as multiplicity? Or do you have a dualistic view.



I don’t quite understand why you question what for me is the very essence of Hindu and Buddhist philosophy? - well I don’t know if it is, but certainly central to druidic philosophy - why would the self need an ‘agent’ to move between things – the essential nature of spirit is freedom [in druidic philosophy] – they are intrinsically linked. The khu’s [primary or primordial spirits] arise out of the void; the two are the same as are all things [same applies to quantum mechanics], there is no separateness between things only in their apparency!


Z

Buddhism is all about questioning

nevertheless... so, in your view, the mind just "knows" and there is nothing required for it to do so?

there is no psychological mechanism for acquiring understanding?

as an aside, i ascribe to neither dualistic or monistic views of reality, for what it is worth.

metta,

~v

 

[_Z_]

Hi vaj,

Nevertheless... so, in your view, the mind just "knows" and there is nothing required for it to do so?

absolutely! that is exactly 'it'.

I would say that it doesn’t reach ‘knowing’ perhaps not even ‘gnosis’ [as in inner knowing], the mind as ‘utilised by the individual’ is secondary to the universal ‘it’/mind. This mind then is within everything, so I am seeing it as like we know our limbs, the mind ‘knows’ everything in existence then via infinity, knows all things throughout time and perhaps eternity [if it exists].

Psychology is way down the line of the subtle to the gross as I see it. perhaps we are more talking in terms of 'un-thinking' y'know. [?]

Infinity is the paper upon which all things are drawn, existence is the drawing the self is the artist and the mind is the universally dextrous ‘it’ that moves throughout the big picture.



Huh, I started that one hoping that a nice little one-liner would arise in my mind, but I am tired and somewhat exhausted, so I hope it helped in some way.

as an aside, i ascribe to neither dualistic or monistic views of reality, for what it is worth.

Always worth keeping the doors open! There’s a nice little discussion on these lines going on in comparative studies – ‘form and formlessness’.



respect and thanx for replies!

Z

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Z,


so, it seems as if you view mind as an independent entity, is that correct?

i.e. that it does not arise based on causes and conditions, rather, it exists in some substantial manner in an eternal sense.

metta,

~v

 

[_Z_]

Namaste vaj

So, it seems as if you view mind as an independent entity

Or perhaps that mind [or self, the ‘it’] is the un-independent and that all else are overlaid upon it. This is then a mirror of the universal mind of which our minds are indistinguishable like a vortex in an ocean [with the will [it] or inner most self and prime mover at the centre]- then like how physical existence is overlaid upon infinity, remembering that this is a description that separates but not the meaning, - the quantum is not absolutely separate from infinity as quarks appear from nothing.



The brain and human form are tools. Like an organic robot, that has its own programs yet may be directed. Whilst we are occupying it the two are indistinguishable i.e. the self/spirit and its form, this – if I may – is because the spirit is pan-transformable and ‘becomes one’ with its form. I would presume that there is a universal principle involved here: ‘like attracts like’ then ‘the act becomes real’ add these together and it supplies us with a glimpse of the mechanism by which incarnations move and rotate [interact] – that we are attracted to a form thence become that form. Returning to the level of mind – the spirit can become one with other things as is does to have arrived here in the first place. This for me is how e.g. visualisation works [and various magics] – we form an image in the mind, and if it correlates to a form in reality, then this simplest of acts is a connection where a oneness is formed, thence we can know that thing and communicate with it –most animals have this ability on a simple level – this is how your dog knows when you are on your way home!



Sorry but I don’t know how to put the above into the language of psychology.



Respect



Z

 

[Vajradhara]

hmm...


i think my dog knows due to his vastly superior sense of smell...

which may or may not be a "good" thing, depending on what one gets to smell!

so.. if the mind is "un-independent" that means that it is dependent, yes?

if that is so, upon what is the mind dependent?

metta,

~v

 

[_Z_]

vaj

I think my dog knows due to his vastly superior sense of smell...

No way – I have tested it to the limit! If you look for it you will see it, I think of the spirit between things as a reality [just because it is not made of energy, that doesn’t mean something is not real imho], just like what we are as spirits is too.

so.. if the mind is "un-independent" that means that it is dependent, yes?

Interesting… what upon itself do you mean? I would think it is simply a free agent – well spirit is anyway, yet is mind of spirit or vice versa? Or it’s simply ways of looking at the same thing? If we can say they are the same, then I would see it thus: ‘there is that which is bound and there is that which is not’! infinity is not, the quantum universe is.

Now I wonder if infinity and spirit are indeed the same thing?

This is like yoga – joining into one.



Metta.

Z