True Self-No Self

earl said:
Hi Iacchus. No, we're not figments of our imagination but who we think we are probably is. ;) earl
Click to expand...
We are the compilation of what we experience. And, to the extent that we "live and learn," then perhaps we discover what it means to be less "selfish." That doesn't mean we don't have a sense of self though, otherwise there would be no point to the whole idea.
 
Iacchus said:
We are the compilation of what we experience. And, to the extent that we "live and learn," then perhaps we discover what it means to be less "selfish." That doesn't mean we don't have a sense of self though, otherwise there would be no point to the whole idea.
Click to expand...

The inner or the outer experience? The layers of the onion.......
Bliss inner or outer? Where is the core of love?

- c -
 
We all have our 'inner-being." This is what guides us and motivates us, whether we realize it or not. To some, this takes on an outwardly or worldly appearance, with the focus on one's own personal gain, although they may attempt to disguise it -- through deceit -- because this is what they cherish most.
 
Iacchus said:
We are the compilation of what we experience. And, to the extent that we "live and learn," then perhaps we discover what it means to be less "selfish." That doesn't mean we don't have a sense of self though, otherwise there would be no point to the whole idea.
Click to expand...

What would it mean to move from less "self"-ish to no "self"-ish? earl
 
earl said:
:D:D:D Earl


Tao, as to "navel gazing," if something seems pretty "hard-wired" into humanity, it must serve an evolutionary imperative. Certainly, the impulse to wonder/explore seems such, whether it is to explore continents, galaxies, or the inner landscape. If the type of "navel gazing" we do serves us to move beyond everyday ego restrictions to a more universally inclusive pan-compassionate embrace of all life and more importantly via that attitude move us to take concrete steps on behalf of the welfare of "all sentient beings" as the Buddhists like to call it, then perhaps the trend toward more contemplative living is serving a real evolutionary imperative. earl
Click to expand...

All exploration has the possibility of revealing new resources. So the imperative is toward that goal. L Ron Hubbard, the scheming charlatan founder of Scientology, establishes in his first book, Dianetics, the progression of imperatives he chooses to call dynamics. The first is to self, the 2nd to progeny, the 3rd to community and so on. It is really basic psychology, no individual can look after his children if he/she is unfit to look after themselves first.
As for this "trend toward more contemplative living", where exactly is this? I see it taking place in the same reasonably affluent liberal westerners it has always been rooted in, but nowhere else.

Tao
 
earl said:
What would it mean to move from less "self"-ish to no "self"-ish? earl
Click to expand...
I don't think this is possible, unless you were to say there was no distinction between man and God. That isn't to say man can't become more like God, however. This I do believe is possible. In which case we begin to define ourselves in terms of "graciousness" which, is still a definable quality, by the way. Although to understand this, would be to give credit to God and not ourselves.
 
Tao_Equus said:
All exploration has the possibility of revealing new resources. So the imperative is toward that goal. L Ron Hubbard, the scheming charlatan founder of Scientology, establishes in his first book, Dianetics, the progression of imperatives he chooses to call dynamics. The first is to self, the 2nd to progeny, the 3rd to community and so on. It is really basic psychology, no individual can look after his children if he/she is unfit to look after themselves first.
As for this "trend toward more contemplative living", where exactly is this? I see it taking place in the same reasonably affluent liberal westerners it has always been rooted in, but nowhere else.

Tao[/quot

Contemplative living I would not lump with Scientology.:D No doubt those who are not scrabbling to make a hard-fought living perhaps tend to be more likely to embrace meditative paths, but then Asia is just chock full of folks that don't let poverty stand in the way of that or, heck, even have renounced material concerns to pursue just that. earl
Click to expand...
 
Iacchus said:
I don't think this is possible, unless you were to say there was no distinction between man and God. That isn't to say man can't become more like God, however. This I do believe is possible. In which case we begin to define ourselves in terms of "graciousness" which, is still a definable quality, by the way. Although to understand this, would be to give credit to God and not ourselves.
Click to expand...
To use the theistic terms you use, let me put it this way, how much "self" do you need to find "God?" take care, earl
 
Iacchus said:
We all have our 'inner-being." This is what guides us and motivates us, whether we realize it or not. To some, this takes on an outwardly or worldly appearance, with the focus on one's own personal gain, although they may attempt to disguise it -- through deceit -- because this is what they cherish most.
Click to expand...

Iacchus,

Is this deceit the notion of the child of you?

Would a more mature version have more understanding?

Even compassion?

- c -
 
Ciel said:
Iacchus,

Is this deceit the notion of the child of you?
Click to expand...
Only to the extent that it becomes spoiled and corrupted.

Would a more mature version have more understanding?

Even compassion?
Click to expand...
Yes, but only so long as we maintain the perception of small child, which is more a matter of not maintaining any "preconceived" notions.
 
earl said:
Ah, well then, of course the younger the child the less developed sense of self they have.:) earl
Click to expand...


Young enough to still be in the undifferentiated state? The irony here is that to get beyond the idea of self, we cannot go back to this state, those who stay in this state are unbalanced and narcissistic. A child must differentiate in a healthy way, and develop a healthy sense of self. For some this process takes many years, some never do develop properly. And as Thomas Merton points out it is then we can go "through" this self into the non-self.

Wilber points out the problems of what he calls the "Pre-Trans Fallacy" in which we mistake the oceanic feelings of early childhood for a mature mystical union.
 
My apologies for interrupting...

WOW, Iacchus! I haven't seen you around in a very long time! Great to see you back!

I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion...
 
Paladin said:
Young enough to still be in the undifferentiated state? The irony here is that to get beyond the idea of self, we cannot go back to this state, those who stay in this state are unbalanced and narcissistic. A child must differentiate in a healthy way, and develop a healthy sense of self. For some this process takes many years, some never do develop properly. And as Thomas Merton points out it is then we can go "through" this self into the non-self.

Wilber points out the problems of what he calls the "Pre-Trans Fallacy" in which we mistake the oceanic feelings of early childhood for a mature mystical union.
Click to expand...
Yes, Paladin, am aware of Wilber's fine point there. T'was merely tweaking folks' "solid" & perhaps unquestioning assumptions about "self." ;) earl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top